Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23442351›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2013

Impact of effectiveness information format on patient choice of therapy and satisfaction with decisions about chronic disease medication: the "Influence of intervention Methodologies on Patient Choice of Therapy (IMPACT)" cluster-randomised trial in general practice.

Charlotte Gry Harmsen, Dorte Ejg Jarbøl, Jørgen Nexøe, Henrik Støvring, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Adrian Edwards, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen

Open access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: cluster-randomised trial in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Trial
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Charlotte Gry HarmsenResearch Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Southern Denmark, Denmark. charmsen@health.sdu.dk
Dorte Ejg Jarbøl
Jørgen Nexøe
Henrik Støvring
Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Jesper Bo Nielsen
Adrian Edwards
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
University of Southern Denmark · DKAarhus University · DKCardiff University · GBUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk communication is an integral part of shared decision-making in health care. In the context of interventions for chronic diseases it represents a particular challenge for all health practitioners. By using two different quantitative formats to communicate risk level and effectiveness of a cholesterol-lowering drug, we posed the research question: how does the format of risk information influence patients' decisions concerning therapy, patients' satisfaction with the communication as well as confidence in the decision. We hypothesise that patients are less prone to accept therapy when the benefits of long-term intervention are presented in terms of prolongation of life (POL) in months compared to the absolute risk reduction (ARR). We hypothesise that patients presented with POL will be more satisfied with the communication and confident in their decision, suggesting understanding of the time-related term. METHODS/

designIn 2009 a sample of 328 general practitioners (GPs) in the Region of Southern Denmark was invited to participate in a primary care-based clinical trial among patients making real-life clinical decisions together with their GP. Interested GPs were cluster-randomised to inform patients about cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effectiveness of statin therapy using either POL or ARR. The GPs attended a training session before informing their patients. Before training and after the trial period they received a questionnaire about their attitudes to risk communication and the use of numerical information. Patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions will be registered in a regional prescription database to evaluate a possible association between redemption rates and effectiveness format. The Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication And Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness (COMRADE) questionnaire will be used to measure patients' confidence and satisfaction with the risk communication immediately after the conversation with their GPs. DISCUSSION: This randomised clinical trial compares the impact of two effectiveness formats on real-life risk communication between patients and GPs, including affective patient outcomes and actual choices about acceptance of therapy. Though we found difficulties in recruiting GPs, according to the study protocol we have succeeded in engaging sufficient GPs for the trial, enabling us to perform the planned analyses.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesChronic DiseaseCluster AnalysisCommunicationDenmarkGeneral PractitionersHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsHypercholesterolemiaMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID23442351
PMCPMC3599428
OpenAlexW2150564814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.