IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i5p585-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Computerized Decision Support Help Patients Make Complex Treatment Decisions? A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Individualized Menopause Decision Aid

Author

Listed:
  • Nananda F. Col

    (Brown Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, coln@mmc.org)

  • Long Ngo

    (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)

  • Jennifer M. Fortin

    (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)

  • Robert J. Goldberg

    (University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA)

  • Annette M. O'Connor

    (University of Ottawa, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

Abstract

Purpose. To compare the effectiveness of an individualized decision aid (DA) with standard educational materials on decisions about menopausal treatments and to assess the feasibility of integrating this DA into clinical practice, with and without coaching. Methods. We conducted a 3-armed randomized controlled trial in 3 clinics, enrolling menopausal women between the ages of 45 and 65 years with primary care appointments. Of the 145 women included, 99 completed a 2-week follow-up. The control group received generic educational materials, 1 intervention group received an individualized computer-generated DA mailed to patients and their clinicians before clinic appointment, and the 2nd intervention group received the same DA along with coached care before clinic appointment (DA + CC). Decisional conflict, satisfaction, and knowledge were measured 2 weeks after clinic appointment. Results. Participants' mean age was 52 years, and 97% were white. Most women (98%) read all or most of the documents. Decisional conflict was significantly lower in both intervention groups but not in the control group. DA reduced decisional conflict from preintervention to postintervention (pre—post change) by 0.70 (SD = 0.56) points (on a 1—5 scale), compared to reductions of 0.51 (SD = 0.51) and 0.09 (SD = 0.44) for the DA + CC group and the control group, respectively. Satisfaction with the decision made was significantly higher at 2 weeks in the DA v. control group. Self-reported knowledge significantly improved in DA + CC compared to controls. Conclusion. Our decision aid lowered decisional conflict and improved patient satisfaction; adding coaching provided little additional benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Nananda F. Col & Long Ngo & Jennifer M. Fortin & Robert J. Goldberg & Annette M. O'Connor, 2007. "Can Computerized Decision Support Help Patients Make Complex Treatment Decisions? A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Individualized Menopause Decision Aid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 585-598, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:585-598
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306781
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07306781?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bromberger, J.T. & Meyer, P.M. & Kravitz, H.M. & Sommer, B. & Cordal, A. & Powell, L. & Ganz, P.A. & Sutton-Tyrrell, K., 2001. "Psychologic distress and natural menopause: A multiethnic community study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(9), pages 1435-1442.
    2. McBride, C.M. & Bastian, L.A. & Halabi, S. & Fish, L. & Lipkus, I.M. & Bosworth, H.B. & Rimer, B.K. & Siegler, I.C., 2002. "A tailored intervention to aid decisionmaking about hormone replacement therapy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(7), pages 1112-1114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lauren Hoefel & Krystina B Lewis & Annette O’Connor & Dawn Stacey, 2020. "20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 522-539, May.
    2. Kisook Kim, 2020. "Identifying the Factors That Affect Depressive Symptoms in Middle-Aged Menopausal Women: A Nationwide Study in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Annette M. O'Connor & Dawn Stacey & Michael J. Barry & Nananda F. Col & Karen B. Eden & Vikki Entwistle & Valerie Fiset & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Sara Khangura & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & David R. Ro, 2007. "Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 554-574, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:585-598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.