BACKGROUND: Statin Choice is a decision aid about taking statins. The optimal mode of delivering Statin Choice (or any other decision aid) in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: To investigate the effect of mode of delivery on decision aid efficacy, the authors further explored the results of a concealed 2 x 2 factorial clustered randomized trial enrolling 21 endocrinologists and 98 diabetes patients and randomizing them to 1) receive either thedecision aid or pamphlet about cholesterol, and 2) have these delivered either during the office visit (by the clinician) or before the visit (by a researcher). We estimated between-group differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for acceptability of information delivery (1-7), knowledge about statins and coronary risk (0-9), and decisional conflict about statin use (0-100) assessed immediately after the visit. Follow-up was 99%. RESULTS: The relative efficacy of the decision aid v. pamphlet interacted with the mode of delivery. Compared with the pamphlet, patients whose clinicians delivered the decision aid during the office visit showed significant improvements in knowledge (difference of 1.6 of 9 questions, CI 0.3, 2.8) and nonsignificant trends toward finding the decision aid more acceptable (odds ratio 3.1, CI 0.9, 11.2) and having less decisional conflict (difference of 7 of 100 points, CI -4, 18) than when a researcher delivered the decision aid just before the office visit. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of decision aids by clinicians during the visit improves knowledge and shows a trend toward better acceptability and less decisional conflict.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Statin Choice is a decision aid about taking statins. The optimal mode of delivering Statin Choice (or any other decision aid) in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: To investigate the effect of mode of delivery on decision aid efficacy, the authors further explored the results of a concealed 2 x 2 factorial clustered randomized trial enrolling 21 endocrinologists and 98 diabetespatients and randomizing them to 1) receive either the decision aid or pamphlet about cholesterol, and 2) have these delivered either during the office visit (by the clinician) or before the visit (by a researcher). We estimated between-group differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for acceptability of information delivery (1-7), knowledge about statins and coronary risk (0-9), and decisional conflict about statin use (0-100) assessed immediately after the visit. Follow-up was 99%. RESULTS: The relative efficacy of the decision aid v. pamphlet interacted with the mode of delivery. Compared with the pamphlet, patients whose clinicians delivered the decision aid during the office visit showed significant improvements in knowledge (difference of 1.6 of 9 questions, CI 0.3, 2.8) and nonsignificant trends toward finding the decision aid more acceptable (odds ratio 3.1, CI 0.9, 11.2) and having less decisional conflict (difference of 7 of 100 points, CI -4, 18) than when a researcher delivered the decision aid just before the office visit. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of decision aids by clinicians during the visit improves knowledge and shows a trend toward better acceptability and less decisional conflict.
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Stephen D Persell; Pablo Perel; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark A Berendsen; Mark D Huffman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-14
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: Kristina Tiedje; Nathan D Shippee; Anna M Johnson; Priscilla M Flynn; Dawn M Finnie; Juliette T Liesinger; Carl R May; Marianne E Olson; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Nilay D Shah; Barbara P Yawn; Victor M Montori Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-04-15
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Catherine H Yu; Noah M Ivers; Dawn Stacey; Jeremy Rezmovitz; Deanna Telner; Kevin Thorpe; Susan Hall; Marc Settino; David M Kaplan; Michael Coons; Sumeet Sodhi; Joanna Sale; Sharon E Straus Journal: Trials Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Catherine H Yu; Dawn Stacey; Joanna Sale; Susan Hall; David M Kaplan; Noah Ivers; Jeremy Rezmovitz; Fok-Han Leung; Baiju R Shah; Sharon E Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 7.327
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
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Jeff Belkora; B Joyce Davison; Marie-Anne Durand; Karen B Eden; Aubri S Hoffman; Mirjam Koerner; France Légaré; Marie-Chantal Loiselle; Richard L Street Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796