Ariel R Green1, Amy Jenkins2, Frederick A Masoudi3,4, David J Magid4,5, Jean S Kutner2, Bruce Leff6,7,8, Daniel D Matlock2,4. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. ariel@jhmi.edu. 2. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, Denver, Colorado. 5. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 6. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Department of Community and Public Health, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When patients are not adequately engaged in decision making, they may be at risk of decision regret. Our objective was to explore patients' perceptions of their decision-making experiences related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS: Cross-sectional, mailed survey of 412 patients who received an ICD without cardiac resynchronization therapy for any indication between 2006 and 2009. Patients were asked about decision participation and decision regret. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with ICDs responded (72% response rate). Overall, 79% reported that they were as involved in the decision as they wanted. However, 28% reported that they were not told of the option of not getting an ICD and 37% did not remember being asked if they wanted an ICD. In total, 19% reported not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. Those who did not want the ICD were younger (<65 years; 74% vs 43%, P < 0.001), had higher decision regret (31/100 vs 11/100, P < 0.001), and reported less participation in decision making (the doctor "totally" made the decision, 9% vs 3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of ICD recipients recalled not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. While these findings may be prone to recall bias, they likely identify opportunities to improve ICD decision making.
BACKGROUND: When patients are not adequately engaged in decision making, they may be at risk of decision regret. Our objective was to explore patients' perceptions of their decision-making experiences related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS: Cross-sectional, mailed survey of 412 patients who received an ICD without cardiac resynchronization therapy for any indication between 2006 and 2009. Patients were asked about decision participation and decision regret. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with ICDs responded (72% response rate). Overall, 79% reported that they were as involved in the decision as they wanted. However, 28% reported that they were not told of the option of not getting an ICD and 37% did not remember being asked if they wanted an ICD. In total, 19% reported not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. Those who did not want the ICD were younger (<65 years; 74% vs 43%, P < 0.001), had higher decision regret (31/100 vs 11/100, P < 0.001), and reported less participation in decision making (the doctor "totally" made the decision, 9% vs 3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of ICD recipients recalled not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. While these findings may be prone to recall bias, they likely identify opportunities to improve ICD decision making.
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Susan M Shetterly; Christina L Clarke; David B Bekelman; Paul S Chan; Larry A Allen; Daniel D Matlock; David J Magid; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; G Neal Kay; Vance J Plumb; H Thomas McElderry; Harish Doppalapudi; Takumi Yamada; Jeff Shafiroff; Zaffer A Syed; Sergio Shkurovich Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 6.343
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: Eleonore V Grant; Jenny Summapund; Daniel D Matlock; Victoria Vaughan Dickson; Sohah Iqbal; Sonal Patel; Stuart D Katz; Sarwat I Chaudhry; John A Dodson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Bryan C Wallace; Jacqueline Jones; Frederick A Masoudi; Carolyn T Nowels; Paul Varosy; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Angela G Brega; Travis Vermilye; Christopher E Knoepke; Amneet Sandhu; Larry A Allen; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 1.912
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Gayathri Embuldeniya; Jasprit Pannag; Krystina B Lewis; Jeff S Healey; Michael McGillion; Lehana Thabane; Dawn Stacey Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Ana Isabel Gonzalez; Christine Schmucker; Joerg J Meerpohl; Christiane Muth; Julia Nothacker; Edith Motschall; Truc Sophia Nguyen; Maria-Sophie Brueckle; Jeanet Blom; Marjan van den Akker; Kristian Röttger; Odette Wegwarth; Tammy Hoffmann; Sharon E Straus; Ferdinand M Gerlach Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daniel D Matlock; Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Andy Tan; Chris Knoepke; Demetria M McNeal; Kathleen M Mazor; Russell E Glasgow Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2020-10-15