OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential value of a theory-based, interactive decision support tool in clinical practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are candidates for biologic agents. METHODS: We conducted an 8-week, 2-arm, parallel, single-blind pilot trial in which candidates for treatment escalation with a biologic agent were randomized to receive either a link to a web-based tool or usual care. Outcomes included changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, values clarification, and satisfaction with risk communication as well as the proportion of subjects defined as making an informed choice to escalate care at 2 weeks. RESULTS:A total of 125 subjects were randomized. Significant between-group differences at 2 weeks favoring the intervention group were seen for changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and values clarification. No significant between-group differences were found in subjects' satisfaction with risk communication. Among those deciding to escalate care, a greater percentage met the criteria for an informed choice at 2 weeks in the intervention group compared to the control group (32% versus 13%; P = 0.02). Improvements in subjective knowledge and values clarification persisted at 8 weeks. There were no between-group differences in objective knowledge at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this study, use of a decision support tool at the time of decision-making resulted in improved objective and subjective knowledge, as well as values clarity, compared to usual care. Not all improvements were sustained, emphasizing the need to offer educational support should additional escalation of care be required over the course of the illness.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential value of a theory-based, interactive decision support tool in clinical practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are candidates for biologic agents. METHODS: We conducted an 8-week, 2-arm, parallel, single-blind pilot trial in which candidates for treatment escalation with a biologic agent were randomized to receive either a link to a web-based tool or usual care. Outcomes included changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, values clarification, and satisfaction with risk communication as well as the proportion of subjects defined as making an informed choice to escalate care at 2 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 125 subjects were randomized. Significant between-group differences at 2 weeks favoring the intervention group were seen for changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and values clarification. No significant between-group differences were found in subjects' satisfaction with risk communication. Among those deciding to escalate care, a greater percentage met the criteria for an informed choice at 2 weeks in the intervention group compared to the control group (32% versus 13%; P = 0.02). Improvements in subjective knowledge and values clarification persisted at 8 weeks. There were no between-group differences in objective knowledge at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this study, use of a decision support tool at the time of decision-making resulted in improved objective and subjective knowledge, as well as values clarity, compared to usual care. Not all improvements were sustained, emphasizing the need to offer educational support should additional escalation of care be required over the course of the illness.
Authors: Charlotte Gry Harmsen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jørgen Nexøe; Henrik Støvring; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Adrian Edwards; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Gabriela Schmajuk; Amal N Trivedi; Daniel H Solomon; Edward Yelin; Laura Trupin; Eliza F Chakravarty; Jinoos Yazdany Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Daniel E Furst; Aseem Bharat; Jeffrey R Curtis; Arthur F Kavanaugh; Joel M Kremer; Larry W Moreland; James O'Dell; Kevin L Winthrop; Timothy Beukelman; S Louis Bridges; W Winn Chatham; Harold E Paulus; Maria Suarez-Almazor; Claire Bombardier; Maxime Dougados; Dinesh Khanna; Charles M King; Amye L Leong; Eric L Matteson; John T Schousboe; Eileen Moynihan; Karen S Kolba; Archana Jain; Elizabeth R Volkmann; Harsh Agrawal; Sangmee Bae; Amy S Mudano; Nivedita M Patkar; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Liana Fraenkel; Ellen Peters; Peter Charpentier; Blair Olsen; Lanette Errante; Robert T Schoen; Valerie Reyna Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Kerry Hood; Michael Robling; Christine Atwell; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Paul Kinnersley; Helen Houston; Ian Russell Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-07
Authors: Seo Young Kim; Amber Servi; Jennifer M Polinski; Helen Mogun; Michael E Weinblatt; Jeffrey N Katz; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Lian van der Krieke; Ando C Emerencia; Nynke Boonstra; Lex Wunderink; Peter de Jonge; Sjoerd Sytema Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Eili Y Klein; Elena M Martinez; Larissa May; Mustapha Saheed; Valerie Reyna; David A Broniatowski Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Betty Hsiao; Pauline Binder-Finnema; W Benjamin Nowell; George Michel; Carole Wiedmeyer; Liana Fraenkel Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Yomei Shaw; Ilinca D Metes; Kaleb Michaud; Julie M Donohue; Mark S Roberts; Marc C Levesque; Judy C Chang Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-03-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: William B Brinkman; Ellen A Lipstein; Janalee Taylor; Pamela J Schoettker; Katherine Naylor; Karla Jones; Sheetal S Vora; Catherine C Mims; Elizabeth Roth-Wojcicki; Beth Gottlieb; Nancy Griffin; Carole Lannon; Esi Morgan Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 3.054
Authors: Glen S Hazlewood; Deborah A Marshall; Claire E H Barber; Linda C Li; Cheryl Barnabe; Vivian Bykerk; Peter Tugwell; Pauline M Hull; Nick Bansback Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.711