Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: A randomized controlled trial

Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Phillips-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.57). 05/2008; 6(3):218-27. DOI: 10.1370/afm.854
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations.
The study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up.
Intervention patients were significantly more satisfied with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P<.001). Decisional regret was significantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a significant difference between study arms.
A simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.Methods We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.ResultsOne hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54 % of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40 %, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89 % expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6¿±¿1.2, scale 1¿7, with 7 being ¿high¿), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P¿<¿0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear ¿bottom line¿ statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.Conclusions Dboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.
    Implementation Science 10/2014; 9(1):144. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0144-6 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background International and national societies claim a patient centred approach including shared decision making (SDM) in diabetes care. In a previous project, a SDM programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction has been developed. It is aimed at supporting patients with type 2 diabetes to make informed choices on preventive options, to share the decision making process with the health care team, and to improve adherence to the chosen treatment. In this study, the programme will be implemented and evaluated in primary care practices. Methods/Design A cluster randomised, controlled trial will be conducted to compare the SDM programme with standard care enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 306) from primary care practices (N = 24). The intervention programme comprises a six hours provider training, a patient decision aid including evidence-based information, a 90 minutes structured teaching session provided by medical assistants, a sheet to document the patients’ individual treatment goals, and a structured consultation with the general practitioner for sharing information, setting treatment goals, and for adapting treatment regimens if necessary. Patients in the control group receive a brief extract of recommendations of the German National Disease Management Guideline on the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome measure is adherence to blood pressure treatment and statin treatment at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures comprise informed choice and the achievement of patients’ treatment goals. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods will be used to explore the implementation processes. Discussion At the end of this study, information on the efficacy of the SDM programme in the primary care context will be available. In addition, processes that might interfere with or that might promote a successful implementation will be identified. Trial registration ISRCTN77300204.
    BMC Family Practice 03/2015; 16. DOI:10.1186/s12875-015-0257-2 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • 06/2011; 1(2). DOI:10.5750/ijpcm.v1i2.80

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014