OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of in-clinic decision aid distribution using a care assistant. METHODS: We identified potentially eligible patients scheduled for upcoming appointments in our General Internal Medicine Clinic (n=1229). Patients were deemed eligible for two decision aids: prostate cancer screening and/or weight loss surgery. Patients were approached to view the decision aid in-clinic. Our primary measures were the proportion of decision aids distributed to eligible patients, and the proportion of decision aids viewed. RESULTS: Among 913 patients who attended their scheduled appointments, 58% (n=525) were approached and eligibility was assessed by the staff member. Among the 471 who remained eligible, 57% (n=268) viewed at least a portion of the target decision aid. The mean viewing time for patients who watched less than the complete decision aid was 13 min. CONCLUSIONS: In clinic viewing of decision aids may be a feasible and effective distribution method in primary care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In clinic distribution requires an electronic health information system to identify potentially eligible patients, and a staff member dedicated to DA distribution. Brief decision aids (less than 10 min) are needed so patients can complete their use prior to the visit to facilitate patient-physician decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of in-clinic decision aid distribution using a care assistant. METHODS: We identified potentially eligible patients scheduled for upcoming appointments in our General Internal Medicine Clinic (n=1229). Patients were deemed eligible for two decision aids: prostate cancer screening and/or weight loss surgery. Patients were approached to view the decision aid in-clinic. Our primary measures were the proportion of decision aids distributed to eligible patients, and the proportion of decision aids viewed. RESULTS: Among 913 patients who attended their scheduled appointments, 58% (n=525) were approached and eligibility was assessed by the staff member. Among the 471 who remained eligible, 57% (n=268) viewed at least a portion of the target decision aid. The mean viewing time for patients who watched less than the complete decision aid was 13 min. CONCLUSIONS: In clinic viewing of decision aids may be a feasible and effective distribution method in primary care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In clinic distribution requires an electronic health information system to identify potentially eligible patients, and a staff member dedicated to DA distribution. Brief decision aids (less than 10 min) are needed so patients can complete their use prior to the visit to facilitate patient-physician decision making.
Authors: Abraham Wandersman; Jennifer Duffy; Paul Flaspohler; Rita Noonan; Keri Lubell; Lindsey Stillman; Morris Blachman; Richard Dunville; Janet Saul Journal: Am J Community Psychol Date: 2008-06
Authors: Jane G Zapka; Stephenie C Lemon; Elaine Puleo; Barbara Estabrook; Roger Luckmann; Stephen Erban Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Steven H Woolf; Evelyn C Y Chan; Russell Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Clarence H Braddock; Robert M Kaplan; Alex Krist; Annette M O'Connor; Sean Tunis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-08-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Robert J Volk; Sarah T Hawley; Suzanne Kneuper; E Wayne Holden; Leonardo A Stroud; Crystale Purvis Cooper; Judy M Berkowitz; Lawrence E Scholl; Smita S Saraykar; Valory N Pavlik Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Jared Adams; Ming Tai-Seale; Qiwen Huang; Sarah B Knowles; Matthew E Nielsen; Michael P Pignone; Louise C Walter; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Michelle Hayes; Anne Hackman; Maria Karamourtopolous; Christine Kistler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tamara Cadet; Gianna Aliberti; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia Jacobson; Elizabeth A Gilliam; Sara Primeau; Roger Davis; Mara A Schonberg Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Ingrid Nota; Constance H C Drossaert; Erik Taal; Harald E Vonkeman; Cees J Haagsma; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Lucia A Leone; Daniel S Reuland; Carmen L Lewis; Mary Ingle; Brian Erman; Tyana J Summers; C Annette Dubard; Michael P Pignone Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Tamara Cadet; Adlin Pinheiro; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Christine E Kistler; Roger B Davis; Mara A Schonberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Isabelle Scholl; Caroline Tietbohl; Mala Mann; Adrian G K Edwards; Catharine Clay; France Légaré; Trudy van der Weijden; Carmen L Lewis; Richard M Wexler; Dominick L Frosch Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796