Trial reportPloS one2024
A randomized controlled trial on the effects of decision aids for choosing discharge destinations of older stroke patients.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japanese medical practice, older stroke survivors are overwhelmed with information regarding their discharge locations, creating more decision-making challenges. A randomized controlled trial evaluated the influence of decision aids (DAs) for matching older stroke patients and their families' values concerning decisional conflict and participation in discharge destination decisions.
methodsParticipants were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. The intervention spanned two months, from admission to discharge, at which times participants were surveyed. DAs were provided to the intervention group, and brochures to the control group. The primary endpoint was decisional conflict, assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The secondary endpoint decision-making participation was assessed using the Control Preference Scale (CPS) decision-making roles and a 10-point Visual Analog Scale for participation rate. An independent t-test analyzed decisional conflict scores and participation rates to examine between-group differences. The chi-square independence test evaluated roles in decision-making scores. Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed.
resultsNinety-nine participants (intervention group n = 51; control group n = 48) were included in the full analysis set, with a dropout rate of 38.4%. No significant group differences were found in decision-making conflict [t (99) = 0.69, p = 0.49, d = 0.14] and roles in decision-making scores [χ2 (5) = 3.65, p = 0.46]. However, a significant group difference was found in the participation rate [t (99) = 2.24, p = 0.03, d = 0.45]. DA tended to reduce uncertainty and promote participation rates, especially in participants living alone and unable to decide their discharge destination.
conclusionsThe use of DA with older stroke patients did not significantly decrease decisional conflicts. In addition, the participation rate in decision-making increased, but their active role did not. Further studies should be conducted to understand the methods of offering DA, their ideal durations, and identify their beneficiaries.
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.