Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28590834›Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017

Comparison of the Effects of a Pharmaceutical Industry Decision Guide and Decision Aids on Patient Choice to Intensify Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Richard W Martin, Ryan D Enck, Donald J Tellinghuisen, Aaron T Eggebeen, James D Birmingham, Andrew J Head

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Richard W MartinDepartment of Medicine, Rheumatology, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (RWM, ATE, JDB, AJH).
Ryan D EnckMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (RDE).
Donald J TellinghuisenDepartment of Psychology, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (DJT).
Aaron T EggebeenDepartment of Medicine, Rheumatology, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (RWM, ATE, JDB, AJH).
James D BirminghamDepartment of Medicine, Rheumatology, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (RWM, ATE, JDB, AJH).
Andrew J HeadDepartment of Medicine, Rheumatology, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, USA (RWM, ATE, JDB, AJH).
Michigan State University · USCalvin University · USGrand Rapids Community College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effects a pharmaceutical industry decision guide and International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) compliant patient decision aids (PtDA) on patient medication beliefs and choice to intensify therapy.

methodsRheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who had never taken etanercept (Enbrel), took part in a mail survey. They were presented with a hypothetical decision scenario where they were asked to consider adding etanercept to their current regimen. Each patient was randomized to review 1 of 3 forms of an etanercept-specific decision support: a long PtDA (LONG DA), a short PtDA (SHORT DA), or the manufacturer's Enbrel decision guide (Pharm Booklet).

resultsWe had 402 RA patients participate in the study (response rate, 52%). Of the patients randomized to the Pharm Booklet, 30.6% elected to initiate etanercept. Only 14.6% and 14.0% of patients who reviewed the LONG DA or SHORT DA choose to take etanercept (χ2 = 15.7; P < 0.001). Patients who reviewed the LONG DA or SHORT DA had a greater increase in knowledge about etanercept than those who reviewed the Pharm Booklet. There was no difference in decisional conflict among the groups. A logistic regression model explained 44.2% (R

conclusionsPatients supported by the Pharm Booklet were twice as likely to choose to intensify therapy. The Pharm Booklet's effects are partially mediated through persuasive communication techniques that influence patients' beliefs that symptoms will improve, and increase social normative beliefs, rather than by increasing the relevant knowledge, clarifying patient values about positive or negative treatment outcomes, or increasing their self-efficacy.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesPractice Guidelines as TopicAgedArthritis, RheumatoidDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug IndustryEtanerceptFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodEtanerceptbeliefs about medicationscausal mediationdecision makingdisease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugsetanerceptevaluative conditioningpatient decision aidrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID28590834
PMCPMC5466141
OpenAlexW2623891564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.