Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Effects of an Explicit Value Clarification Method With Computer-Tailored Advice on the Effectiveness of a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Decision Aid: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Values clarification and parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2020Trial
- An exploratory mixed-methods crossover study comparing DVD- vs. Web-based patient decision support in three conditions: The importance of patient perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Trial
- Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Trial
- Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Trial
- A randomized trial of an intervention to improve use and adherence to effective coronary heart disease prevention strategies.BMC health services research · 2011Trial
- An Autonomy-Supportive Online Decision Aid to Assist Smokers in Choosing Evidence-Based Cessation Assistance: Development Process and Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Review
- Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- "I don't know exactly what you're referring to": the challenge of values elicitation in decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening.Translational behavioral medicine · 2015Article
- The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
- Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know?The oncologist · 2012Review
- A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.Clinical and translational science · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExperts have called for the inclusion of values clarification (VC) exercises in decision aids (DAs) as a means of improving their effectiveness, but little research has examined the effects of such exercises.
objectiveTo determine whether adding a VC exercise to a DA on heart disease prevention improves decision-making outcomes.
designRandomized trial.
settingUNC Decision Support Laboratory. PATIENTS: Adults ages 40 to 80 with no history of cardiovascular disease.
interventionA Web-based heart disease prevention DA with or without a VC exercise. MEASUREMENTS: Pre- and postintervention decisional conflict and intent to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and postintervention self-efficacy and perceived values concordance.
resultsThe authors enrolled 137 participants (62 in DA; 75 in DA + VC with moderate decisional conflict (DA 2.4; DA + VC 2.5) and no baseline differences among groups. After the interventions, they found no clinically or statistically significant differences between groups in decisional conflict (DA 1.8; DA + VC 1.9; absolute difference VC-DA 0.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 0.3), intent to reduce CHD risk (DA 98%; DA + VC 100%; absolute difference VC-DA: 2%, 95% CI: -0.02% to 5%), perceived values concordance (DA 95%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -3%, 95% CI: -11% to +5%), or self-efficacy for risk reduction (DA 97%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -5%, 95% CI: -13% to +3%). However, DA + VC tended to change some decisions about risk reduction strategies. LIMITATIONS: Use of a hypothetical scenario; ceiling effects for some outcomes.
conclusionsAdding a VC intervention to a DA did not further improve decision-making outcomes in a population of highly educated and motivated adults responding to scenario-based questions. Work is needed to determine the effects of VC on more diverse populations and more distal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.