ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2014
The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 7 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
- An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2015Trial
- Exploring the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making Involving Health Coaches for Diabetes and Hypertension Self-Management: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Patterns of online information use prior to middle-ear surgery: a retrospective cohort study.The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2024Article
- Effects of self-management interventions in adults with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Revista de salud publica (Bogota, Colombia) · 2023Article
- Understanding the Current Landscape of Health Literacy Interventions within Health Systems.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Shared decision-making (SHARE-D) for healthy behaviour change: a feasibility study in general practice.BJGP open · 2018Article
- Aspirin for primary prevention: a challenging decision.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision aids offer promise as a practical solution to improve patient decision making about coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention medications and help patients choose medications to which they are likely to adhere. However, little data is available on decision aids designed to promote adherence.
methodsIn this paper, we report on secondary analyses of a randomized trial of a CHD adherence intervention (second generation decision aid plus tailored messages) versus usual care in an effort to understand how the decision aid facilitates adherence. We focus on data collected from the primary study visit, when intervention participants presented 45 minutes early to a previously scheduled provider visit; viewed the decision aid, indicating their intent for CHD risk reduction after each decision aid component (individualized risk assessment and education, values clarification, and coaching); and filled out a post-decision aid survey assessing their knowledge, perceived risk, decisional conflict, and intent for CHD risk reduction. Control participants did not present early and received usual care from their provider. Following the provider visit, participants in both groups completed post-visit surveys assessing the number and quality of CHD discussions with their provider, their intent for CHD risk reduction, and their feelings about the decision aid.
resultsWe enrolled 160 patients into our study (81 intervention, 79 control). Within the decision aid group, the decision aid significantly increased knowledge of effective CHD prevention strategies (+21 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and the accuracy of perceived CHD risk (+33 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001), and significantly decreased decisional conflict (-0.63; adjusted p<.0001). Comparing between study groups, the decision aid also significantly increased CHD prevention discussions with providers (+31 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and improved perceptions of some features of patient-provider interactions. Further, it increased participants' intentions for any effective CHD risk reducing strategies (+21 percentage points; 95% CI 5 to 37 percentage points), with a majority of the effect from the educational component of the decision aid. Ninety-nine percent of participants found the decision aid easy to understand and 93% felt it easy to use.
conclusionsDecision aids can play an important role in improving decisions about CHD prevention and increasing patient-provider discussions and intent to reduce CHD risk.
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.