IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i1p69-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Kristin L. Rising
  • Judd E. Hollander
  • Jason T. Schaffer
  • Jeffrey A. Kline
  • Carlos A. Torres
  • Deborah B. Diercks
  • Russell Jones
  • Kelly P. Owen
  • Zachary F. Meisel
  • Michel Demers
  • Annie Leblanc
  • Nilay D. Shah
  • Jonathan Inselman
  • Jeph Herrin
  • Victor M. Montori
  • Erik P. Hess

Abstract

Background . We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods . This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results . Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low†health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical†than in the “low†numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low†literacy compared with those with “typical†literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions . CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low†health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristin L. Rising & Judd E. Hollander & Jason T. Schaffer & Jeffrey A. Kline & Carlos A. Torres & Deborah B. Diercks & Russell Jones & Kelly P. Owen & Zachary F. Meisel & Michel Demers & Annie Leblanc, 2018. "Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 69-78, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:69-78
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17706363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17706363
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17706363?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. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Renata W. Yen & Jenna Smith & Jaclyn Engel & Danielle Marie Muscat & Sian K. Smith & Julien Mancini & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Glyn Elwyn & A. James O’Malley & JoAnna K. Leyenaar & Olivia Mac & , 2021. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 870-896, October.

    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. Joann Seo & Melody S. Goodman & Mary Politi & Melvin Blanchard & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2016. "Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 550-556, May.
    2. Kathleen Abu-Saad & Nihaya Daoud & Giora Kaplan & Arnona Ziv & Arnon D. Cohen & Liraz Olmer & Daphna Pollack & Ofra Kalter-Leibovici, 2022. "Comparing Patient Perspectives on Diabetes Management to the Deficit-Based Literature in an Ethnic Minority Population: A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Attanasio, Laura B. & Hardeman, Rachel R., 2019. "Declined care and discrimination during the childbirth hospitalization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 270-277.
    4. Manning, Mark & Albrecht, Terrance L. & Yilmaz-Saab, Zeynep & Shultz, Julie & Purrington, Kristen, 2016. "Influences of race and breast density on related cognitive and emotion outcomes before mandated breast density notification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 171-179.
    5. Gross, Christiane & Schübel, Thomas & Hoffmann, Rasmus, 2015. "Picking up the pieces—Applying the DISEASE FILTER to health data," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 549-557.

    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:38:y:2018:i:1:p:69-78. 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.