Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care

Megan E Branda, Annie LeBlanc, Nilay D Shah, Kristina Tiedje, Kari Ruud, Holly Van Houten, Laurie Pencille, Marge Kurland, Barbara Yawn, Victor M Montori, Megan E Branda, Annie LeBlanc, Nilay D Shah, Kristina Tiedje, Kari Ruud, Holly Van Houten, Laurie Pencille, Marge Kurland, Barbara Yawn, Victor M Montori

Abstract

Background: Patient-centered diabetes care requires shared decision making (SDM). Decision aids promote SDM, but their efficacy in nonacademic and rural primary care clinics is unclear.

Methods: We cluster-randomized 10 practices in a concealed fashion to implement either a decision aid (DA) about starting statins or one about choosing antihyperglycemic agents. Each practice served as a control group for another practice implementing the other type of DA. From April 2011 to July 2012, 103 (DA=53) patients with type 2 diabetes participated in the trial. We used patient and clinician surveys administered after the clinical encounter to collect decisional outcomes (patient knowledge and comfort with decision making, patient and clinician satisfaction). Medical records provided data on metabolic control. Pharmacy fill profiles provided data for estimating adherence to therapy.

Results: Compared to usual care, patients receiving the DA were more likely to report discussing medications (77% vs. 45%, p<.001), were more likely to answer knowledge questions correctly (risk reduction with statins 61% vs. 33%, p=.07; knowledge about options 57% vs. 33%, p=.002) and were more engaged by their clinicians in decision making (50. vs. 28, difference 21.4 (95% CI 6.4, 36.3), p=.01). We found no significant impact on patient satisfaction, medication starts, adherence or clinical outcomes, in part due to limited statistical power.

Conclusion: DAs improved decisional outcomes without significant effect on clinical outcomes. DAs designed for point-of-care use with type 2 diabetes patients promoted shared decision making in nonacademic and rural primary care practices.

Trial registration: NCT01029288.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design for clinical trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram for clinical trial.

References

    1. Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expectations. 2006;9(1):25–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00359.x.
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NJ, Eden KB. et al.Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10 CD001431.
    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. Montori VM, Breslin M, Maleska M, Weymiller AJ. Creating a conversation: insights from the development of a decision aid. PLoS Med. 2007;4(8):e233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040233.
    1. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, Gafni A, Guyatt GH. et al.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. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJ, Bryant SC. et al.The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1560–1568. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.293.
    1. Mann D, Ponieman D, Montori VM, Arciniega J, McGinn T. The statin choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):138–140. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.008.
    1. State of Minnesota. House of Representatives. 87th session. H.F. 2230 Section 6.7. 2012. .
    1. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1584. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.500.
    1. Multiple Chronic Conditions Measurement Framework. National Quality Forum. 2012. .
    1. NQF. National Priorities Partnership, Washington, DC: NQF; 2011. 2011. Available at National Priorities Partnership.
    1. Pencille LJ, Campbell ME, Van Houten HK. Protocol for the osteoporosis choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice. Trials. 2009;10:113. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-113.
    1. LeBlanc A, Ruud KL, Branda ME, Tiedje K, Boehmer KR. The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD Study): Protocol of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Health Services Res. 2012;130 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-130.
    1. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
    1. Haynes RB, McDonald HP, Garg AX. Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2880–3. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.22.2880.
    1. Lin LI-K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255–268. doi: 10.2307/2532051.
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M. et al.The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8(1):34–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x.
    1. Littenberg B, MacLean CD. Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: the Vermont Diabetes Information System Field Survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-20.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbl2008.08.010.
    1. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hebert P. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ. 2002;325(7365):652–654. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652.
    1. Tiedje K, Shippee ND, Johnson JM. ‘They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion’: Understanding Decision Aid Use and Patient-Clinician Decision-Making through Qualitative Research. Patient Educ Couns. 2013.
    1. Frosch DL, May SG, Rendle KAS. Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff. 2012;31(5):1030–1038. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576.
    1. Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. NEJM. 2013;368:6–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1209500.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅