Effects of Shared Decision-Making with a Patient Decision Aid for Postangiography Hemostasis Method Selection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:0
|
作者
Huang, Yi-Chun [1 ]
Kao, Chao-Chen [2 ]
Lu, Yueh-Hsun [3 ,4 ]
Chou, Yun-Yun [5 ]
Lin, Yen-Kuang [6 ]
Tam, Ka-Wai [5 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, Taipei, Taiwan
[2] Taipei Med Univ, Coll Med, Sch Med, Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Radiol, Taipei, Taiwan
[4] Taipei Med Univ, Coll Med, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Taipei, Taiwan
[5] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Shared Decis Making Resource Ctr, Taipei, Taiwan
[6] Natl Taiwan Sport Univ, Grad Inst Athlet & Coaching Sci, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[7] Natl Taiwan Sport Univ, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[8] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Surg, Div Gen Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
[9] Taipei Med Univ, Coll Med, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
[10] Taipei Med Univ, Coll Med, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
[11] Taipei Med Univ, Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan
[12] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Surg, 291,Zhongzheng Rd, Taipei 23561, Taiwan
[13] Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
VASCULAR CLOSURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvir.2023.01.001
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the effects of shared decision-making (SDM) with a patient decision aid (PtDA) on hemostasis device selection and reduction of decisional conflicts in patients undergoing transfemoral angiography.Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing angiography were randomized to receive either a standard explanation or the process aid of PtDA for choosing hemostasis devices. The decisional conflict was assessed using the 4-item Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement (SURE) scale. Differences in demographic variables, clinical variables, and final choice of hemostasis devices were compared via univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.Results: In total, 158 patients were included-80 in the PtDA group and 78 in the standard group. No difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of patient demographic and clinical variables. The PtDA group scored better on all questions of the SURE scale both individually and collaboratively (P <.001). PtDA intervention (P =.031) and reason for angiography (P =.0006) were the main variables that influenced patient hemostasis device choice in the univariate logistic regression analysis. Reason for angiography remained the only deciding factor that affected patient choice in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (P =.015).Conclusions: Step-by-step guidance and pictorial explanation with the assistance of PtDA led to improvements in patient knowledge but showed no significant impact in multivariate analysis for the influence on the choice of hemostasis device.
引用
收藏
页码:832 / 839
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision-making aid for orthodontics
    Parker, Kate
    Cunningham, Susan J.
    Petrie, Aviva
    Ryan, Fiona S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2017, 152 (02) : 154 - 160
  • [2] A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC
    Rocque, Gabrielle B.
    Eltoum, Noon
    Caston, Nicole E.
    Williams, Courtney P.
    Oliver, Marian M.
    Moradi, Lauren
    Ingram, Stacey
    Azuero, Andres
    Pisu, Maria
    Bhatia, Smita
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2024, 206 (03) : 483 - 493
  • [3] Shared Decision-Making Is Not Patient Decision-Making
    Birnbrich, Alysa
    McCulloch, Patrick C.
    Kraeutler, Matthew J.
    SPORTS HEALTH-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH, 2023, 15 (04): : 615 - 616
  • [4] A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Utility of a Patient Decision Aid to Improve Clinical Trial (RAVES 08.03) Related Decision-Making
    Sundaresan, P.
    Ager, B.
    Turner, S. L.
    Costa, D.
    Kneebone, A.
    Pearse, M.
    Woo, H.
    Tesson, S.
    Juraskova, I.
    Butow, P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (05): : 1316 - 1316
  • [5] Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Masahito Jimbo
    Karen Kelly-Blake
    Ananda Sen
    Sarah T Hawley
    Mack T Ruffin
    Trials, 14
  • [6] Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Jimbo, Masahito
    Kelly-Blake, Karen
    Sen, Ananda
    Hawley, Sarah T.
    Ruffin, Mack T.
    TRIALS, 2013, 14
  • [7] A decision aid versus shared decision making for prostate cancer screening results of a randomized, controlled trial
    Stamm, Andrew W.
    Banerji, John S.
    Wolff, Erika M.
    Slee, April
    Akapame, Sydney
    Dahl, Kathryn
    Massman, John D., III
    Soung, Michael C.
    Pittenger, Kim R.
    Corman, John M.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 24 (04) : 8910 - 8917
  • [8] Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes
    Giguere, Anik M. C.
    Labrecque, Michel
    Legare, France
    Grad, Roland
    Cauchon, Michel
    Greenway, Matthew
    Haynes, R. Brian
    Pluye, Pierre
    Syed, Iqra
    Banerjee, Debi
    Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues
    Martin, Melanie
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2015, 15
  • [9] Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes
    Anik MC Giguere
    Michel Labrecque
    France Légaré
    Roland Grad
    Michel Cauchon
    Matthew Greenway
    R Brian Haynes
    Pierre Pluye
    Iqra Syed
    Debi Banerjee
    Pierre-Hugues Carmichael
    Mélanie Martin
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15
  • [10] Patient Decision Aid Selection for Shared Decision Making: A Multicase Qualitative Study
    LeRouge, Cynthia
    Nguyen, Ann M.
    Bowen, Deborah J.
    MEDICAL CARE RESEARCH AND REVIEW, 2022, 79 (02) : 267 - 280