Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003
A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions to support shared decision making for hypertension: A systematic review of controlled studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of information in decision aids.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007Pooled it
- Sicily statement on evidence-based practice.BMC medical education · 2005Guideline
- Lack of effects of evidence-based, individualised counselling on medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Trial
- Improving physician-patient communication about cancer pain with a tailored education-coaching intervention.Patient education and counseling · 2010Trial
- Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Trial
- A randomised controlled trial of three pragmatic approaches to initiate increased physical activity in sedentary patients with risk factors for cardiovascular disease.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Trial
- Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2003Trial
- Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingTrial
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of evidence regarding the value of tools designed to aid decision making in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension.
aimTo evaluate two interventions for assisting newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in the decision whether to start drug therapy for reducing blood pressure. DESIGN OF STUDY: Factorial randomised controlled trial.
settingTwenty-one general practices in south-west England, UK.
methodAdults aged 32 to 80 years with newly diagnosed hypertension were randomised to receive either: (a) computerised utility assessment interview with individualized risk assessment and decision analysis; or (b) information video and leaflet about high blood pressure; or (c) both interventions; or (d) neither intervention. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge, state anxiety, intentions regarding starting treatment, and actual treatment decision.
resultsOf 217 patients randomised, 212 (98%) were analysed at the primary follow-up (mean age = 59 years, 49% female). Decision analysis patients had lower decisional conflict than those who did not receive this intervention (27.6 versus 38.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] for adjusted difference = -13.0 to -5.8, P < 0.001), greater knowledge about hypertension (73% versus 67%, adjusted 95% CI = 2% to 9%, P = 0.003) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (34.8 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -5.6 to 0.1, P = 0.055). Video/leaflet patients had lower decisional conflict than corresponding controls (30.3 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -7.4 to -0.6, P = 0.021), greater knowledge (75% versus 65%, adjusted 95% CI = 6% to 13%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (35.7 versus 36.1, adjusted 95% CI = -3.9 to 1.7, P = 0.46). There were no differences between either of the interventions and their respective controls in the proportion of patients prescribed antihypertensive medication (67%).
conclusionsThis trial demonstrates that, among patients facing a real treatment decision, interventions to inform patients about hypertension and to clarify patients' values concerning outcomes of treatment are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge, while not resulting in any increases in state anxiety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12939889PMC1314618W1874971545What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.