Trial reportBMC research notes2014
Investigating active ingredients in a complex intervention: a nested study within the Patient and Decision Aids (PANDAs) randomised controlled trial for people with type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals' and patients' preferences.European journal of cancer care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomised trials provide evidence that patient decision aids improve outcomes with respect to patient knowledge, involvement and satisfaction in decision making. It is less clear how these complex interventions are implemented within patient-clinician interactions and which components are active for improving decision processes. To investigate the experiences of using a diabetes treatment decision aid and to explore how components within a complex intervention influenced the decision making process.
methodsA pragmatic mixed methods study nested within the PANDAs cluster randomised trial of a patient decision aid. Themes inductively derived from interviews and observation of consultations with further triangulation with results of decision quality and involvement measurements and case analyses.
resultsThe decision aid intervention was employed flexibly within the consultation with both the patient and clinician active in marshalling elements. The decision aid improved processing and organization of information needed for decision making within the consultation interaction. It also improved decision quality by preparing the patient for active involvement within the clinical consultation.
conclusionThe intervention was acceptable, flexible and readily implemented in primary care consultations. The decision aid was effective in facilitating cognitive processing. The intervention also facilitated rehearsal in preparation for active roles in a shared decision process.
trial registrationTrials Register Number: ISRCTN14842077. Date registered: 24.06.2010.
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.