The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial

Annie LeBlanc, Kari L Ruud, Megan E Branda, Kristina Tiedje, Kasey R Boehmer, Laurie J Pencille, Holly Van Houten, Marc Matthews, Nilay D Shah, Carl R May, Barbara P Yawn, Victor M Montori, Annie LeBlanc, Kari L Ruud, Megan E Branda, Kristina Tiedje, Kasey R Boehmer, Laurie J Pencille, Holly Van Houten, Marc Matthews, Nilay D Shah, Carl R May, Barbara P Yawn, Victor M Montori

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patient-centered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient's values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice.

Methods/design: We will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms.

Discussion: Upon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices.

Trial registration: NCT00388050.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Eligibility criteria and assignment by arms.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2007. In Book National Diabetes Fact Sheet: General Information and National Estimates on Diabetes in the United States, 2007. 2008.
    1. Huang ES, Brown SE, Ewigman BG, Foley EC, Meltzer DO. Patient perceptions of quality of life with diabetes-related complications and treatments. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2478–2483. doi: 10.2337/dc07-0499.
    1. Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, Wilson L, Yeh HC, Marinopoulos S, Wiley C, Selvin E, Wilson R, Bass EB, Brancati FL. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:386–399.
    1. Heisler M, Vijan S, Anderson RM, Ubel PA, Bernstein SJ, Hofer TP. When do patients and their physicians agree on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, and what difference does it make? J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:893–902. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21132.x.
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Legare F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. p. CD001431. Art. No.
    1. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, Gafni A, Guyatt GH, Bryant SC, Christianson TJ, Mullan RJ, Smith SA. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1076–1082. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076.
    1. Breslin M, Mullan RJ, Montori VM. The design of a decision aid about diabetes medications for use during the consultation with patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):465–472. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.024.
    1. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJ, Bryant SC, Guyatt GH, Perestelo-Perez LI, Stroebel RJ, Yawn BP, Yapuncich V. et al.The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–1568.
    1. Gravel K, Legare F, Graham I. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implement Sci. 2006;1:16. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-16.
    1. Michie S. Talking to primary care patients about weight: a study of GPs and practice nurses in the UK. Psychol Health Med. 2007;12:521–525. doi: 10.1080/13548500701203441.
    1. Montori VM, Breslin M, Maleska M, Weymiller AJ. Creating a conversation: insights from the development of a decision aid. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040233.
    1. Glasgow RE, McKay HG, Piette JD, Reynolds KD. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Educ Couns. 2001;44:119–127. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00186-5.
    1. Glasgow RE. RE-AIMing research for application: ways to improve evidence for family medicine. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19:11–19. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.19.1.11.
    1. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A. et al.Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:25–30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
    1. O’Connor AM. User Manual – Decisional Conflict Scale [document on the Internet] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2010. Available from .
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY, Grol R. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8:34–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x.
    1. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:93–99. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.
    1. Abadie R, Weymiller AJ, Tilburt J, Shah N, Charles C, Gafni A, Montori V. Clinician’s use of the Statin Choice decision aid in patients with diabetes: a videographic study nested in a randomized trial. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(3):492–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01048.x.
    1. Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA, Kesman RL, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Jaeger TM, Johnson RE. et al.Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124:549–556. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013.
    1. Ross DA, Ware JE. Measuring Health Perceptions in the Health Insurance Experiment. Measuring Health Perceptions in the Health Insurance Experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation;RAND Corporation; 1981. .
    1. Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, Williams A. Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:521–531. doi: 10.1007/BF00439226.
    1. Sapin C, Fantino B, Nowicki ML, Kind P. Usefulness of EQ-5D in assessing health status in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-20.
    1. Hayes AJ, Clarke PM, Glasziou PG, Simes RJ, Drury PL, Keech AC. Can self-rated health scores be used for risk prediction in patients with type 2 diabetes? Diabetes Care. 2008;31:795–797. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1391.
    1. Sullivan MD, Anderson RT, Aron D, Atkinson HH, Bastien A, Chen GJ, Feeney P, Gafni A, Hwang W, Katz LA. et al.Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness components of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: rationale and design. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:90i–102i. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.03.027.
    1. Eddy DM, Pawlson LG, Schaaf D, Peskin B, Shcheprov A, Dziuba J, Bowman J, Eng B. The potential effects of HEDIS performance measures on the quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1429–1441. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1429.
    1. Sawin CT, Walder DJ, Bross DS, Pogach LM. Diabetes process and outcome measures in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(Suppl 2):B90–B94.
    1. Hearnshaw H, Lindenmeyer A. What do we mean by adherence to treatment and advice for living with diabetes? A review of the literature on definitions and measurements. Diabet Med. 2006;23:720–728.
    1. Vermeire E, Wens J, Van Royen P, Biot Y, Hearnshaw H, Lindenmeyer A. Interventions for improving adherence to treatment recommendations in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Datab Syst Rev. 2005. p. CD003638. Art. No.
    1. Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. New Yok: Oxford United Press; 2007.
    1. Donner A, LKlar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomisation Trials in Health Research. London: Arnold; 2000.
    1. Yudkin PL, Moher M. Putting theory into practice: a cluster randomized trial with a small number of clusters. Stat Med. 2001;20:341–349. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<341::AID-SIM796>;2-G.
    1. Denzin N. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.
    1. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Strauss A. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する