James G Dolan1, Peter J Veazie2. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 265 Crittenden Blvd., CU 420644, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. james_dolan@urmc.rochester.edu. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 265 Crittenden Blvd., CU 420644, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making. METHODS: The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief "washout" period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5%; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making. METHODS: The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief "washout" period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5%; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.
Authors: Lesley A Jones; Audrey J Weymiller; Nilay Shah; Sandra C Bryant; Teresa J H Christianson; Gordon H Guyatt; Amiram Gafni; Steven A Smith; Victor M Montori Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Rebecca J Mullan; Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah; Teresa J H Christianson; Sandra C Bryant; Gordon H Guyatt; Lilisbeth I Perestelo-Perez; Robert J Stroebel; Barbara P Yawn; Victor Yapuncich; Maggie A Breslin; Laurie Pencille; Steven A Smith Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-09-28
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583