Browsing by Subject "Decision aid"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A multi-site pilot study of a parent-centered tool to promote shared decision-making in hypospadias care
    (Elsevier, 2023) Binion, Kelsey E.; Rode, Akash Uday; Nortey, Gabrielle; Miller, Andrew D.; Misseri, Rosalia; Kaefer, Martin; Ross, Sherry; Preisser, John S.; Hu, Di; Chan, Katherine H.; Communication Studies, School of Liberal Arts
    Background: Using a user-centered design approach, we conducted a two-site pilot study to evaluate a decision aid (DA) website, the Hypospadias Hub, for parents of hypospadias patients. Objectives: The objectives were to assess the Hub's acceptability, remote usability, and feasibility of study procedures, and to evaluate its preliminary efficacy. Methods: From June 2021-February 2022, we recruited English-speaking parents (≥18 years old) of hypospadias patients (≤5 years) and delivered the Hub electronically ≤2 months before their hypospadias consultation. We collected website analytic data using an ad tracker plug-in. We inquired about treatment preference, hypospadias knowledge, and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) at baseline, after viewing the Hub (pre-consultation), and post-consultation. We administered the Decision Aid Acceptability Questionnaire (DAAQ) and the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale (PrepDM) which assessed how well the Hub prepared parents for decision-making with the urologist. Post-consultation, we assessed participants' perception of involvement in decision-making with the Shared Decision-making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). A bivariate analysis compared participants' baseline and pre/post-consultation hypospadias knowledge, decisional conflict, and treatment preference. Using a thematic analysis, we analyzed our semi-structured interviews to uncover how the Hub impacted the consultation and what influenced participants' decisions. Results: Of 148 parents contacted, 134 were eligible and 65/134 (48.5%) enrolled: mean age 29.2, 96.9% female, 76.6% White (Extended Summary Figure). Pre/post-viewing the Hub, there was a statistically significant increase in hypospadias knowledge (54.3 vs. 75.6, p < 0.001) and decrease in decisional conflict (36.0 vs. 21.9, p < 0.001). Most participants (83.3%) thought Hub's length and amount of information (70.4%) was "about right", and 93.0% found most or everything was clear. Pre/post-consultation, there was a statistically significant decrease in decisional conflict (21.9 vs. 8.8, p < 0.001). PrepDM's mean score was 82.6/100 (SD = 14.1); SDM-Q-9's mean score was 82.5/100 (SD = 16.7). DCS's mean score was 25.0/100 (SD = 47.03). Each participant spent an average of 25.75 min reviewing the Hub. Based on thematic analysis, the Hub helped participants feel prepared for the consultation. Discussion: Participants engaged extensively with the Hub and demonstrated improved hypospadias knowledge and decision quality. They felt prepared for the consultation and perceived a high degree of involvement in decision-making. Conclusion: As the first pilot test of a pediatric urology DA, the Hub was acceptable and study procedures were feasible. We plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial of the Hub versus usual care to test its efficacy to improve the quality of shared decision-making and reduce long-term decisional regret.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study: design and methods of a multi-center study of decision aid for older drivers
    (BMC, 2021-05-03) Betz, Marian E.; Omeragic, Faris; Meador, Lauren; DiGuiseppi, Carolyn G.; Fowler, Nicole R.; Han, S. Duke; Hill, Linda; Johnson, Rachel L.; Knoepke, Christopher E.; Matlock, Daniel D.; Moran, Ryan; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Decision-making about when to stop driving for older adults involves assessment of driving risk, availability of support or resources, and strong emotions about loss of independence. Although the risk of being involved in a fatal crash increases with age, driving cessation can negatively impact an older adult's health and well-being. Decision aids can enhance the decision-making process by increasing knowledge of the risks and benefits of driving cessation and improve decision quality. The impact of decision aids regarding driving cessation for older adults is unknown. Methods: The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study is a multi-site, two-armed randomized controlled trial that will test the impact of a decision aid on older adults' decisions about changes in driving behaviors and cessation. AUTO will enroll 300 drivers age ≥ 70 years with a study partner (identified by each driver); the dyads will be randomized into two groups (n = 150/group). The decision aid group will view the web-based decision aid created by Healthwise at baseline and the control group will review information about driving that does not include evidence-based elements on risks and benefits and values clarification about driving decisions. The AUTO trial will compare the effect of the decision aid, versus control, on a) immediate decision quality (measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale; primary outcome); b) longitudinal psychosocial outcomes at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes); and c) longitudinal driving behaviors (including reduction or cessation) at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes). Planned stratified analyses will examine the effects in subgroups defined by cognitive function, decisional capacity, and readiness to stop driving. Discussion: The AUTO study is the first large-scale randomized trial of a driving decision aid for older adults. Results from this study will directly inform clinical practice about how best to support older adults in decision-making about driving.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    (American Heart Association, 2022) Noseworthy, Peter A.; Branda, Megan E.; Kunneman, Marleen; Hargraves, Ian G.; Sivly, Angela L.; Brito, Juan P.; Burnett, Bruce; Zeballos-Palacios, Claudia; Linzer, Mark; Suzuki, Takeki; Lee, Alexander T.; Gorr, Haeshik; Jackson, Elizabeth A.; Hess, Erik; Brand-McCarthy, Sarah R.; Shah, Nilay D.; Montori, Victor M.; SDM4AFib (Shared Decision-Making for Atrial Fibrillation) Trial Investigators; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results: We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions: In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    “Is it time to stop driving?”: A Randomized Clinical Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Older Drivers
    (Wiley, 2022) Betz, Marian E.; Hill, Linda L.; Fowler, Nicole R.; DiGuiseppi, Carolyn; Han, S. Duke; Johnson, Rachel L.; Meador, Lauren; Omeragic, Faris; Peterson, Ryan A.; Matlock, Daniel D.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Many older adults face the difficult decision of when to stop driving. We sought to test whether an online driving decision aid (DDA) would improve decision quality. Methods: This prospective two-arm randomized trial enrolled English-speaking licensed drivers (age ≥70 years) without significant cognitive impairment but with ≥1 diagnosis associated with increased likelihood of driving cessation); all participants received primary care in clinics associated with study sites in three states. The intervention was the online Healthwise® DDA for older adults addressing “Is it time to stop driving?”; control was web-based information for older drivers only. The primary outcome was decision conflict as estimated by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS; lower scores indicate higher quality). Secondary outcomes were knowledge and decision self-efficacy about driving decisions. We examined post-randomization differences in primary and secondary outcomes by study arm using generalized linear mixed-effects models with adjustment for site and pre-randomization scores. Results: Among 301 participants (mean age: 77.1 years), 51.2% identified as female and the majority as non-Hispanic (99.0%) and White (95.3%); 98.0% lived in an urban area. Participant characteristics were similar by study arm but differed across sites. Intervention participants had a lower mean DCS score (12.3 DDA vs 15.2 control; adjusted mean ratio [AMR] 0.76, 95%CI 0.61–0.95; p=0.017). Intervention participants had higher mean knowledge scores (88.9 DDA vs 79.9 control; OR 1.13, 95%CI 1.01–1.27, p=0.038); there was no difference between groups in self-efficacy scores. The DDA had high acceptability; 86.9% of those who viewed it said they would recommend it to others in similar situations. Conclusions: The online Healthwise® DDA decreased decision conflict and increased knowledge in this sample of English-speaking, older adults without significant cognitive impairment, although most chose to continue driving. Use of such resources in clinical or community settings may support older adults as they transition from driving to other forms of mobility.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Testing an HPV Vaccine Decision Aid for 27- to 45-Year-Old Adults in the United States: A Randomized Trial
    (Sage, 2025) Thompson, Erika L.; Luningham, Justin; Alkhatib, Sarah A.; Grace, Jessica; Akpan, Idara N.; Daley, Ellen M.; Zimet, Gregory D.; Wheldon, Christopher W.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: In the United States, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among 27- to 45-y-olds (mid-adults) is recommended based on shared clinical decision making with a health care provider. We developed a patient decision aid tool to support the implementation of this mid-adult HPV vaccination guideline. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a patient decision aid tool for HPV vaccination, HPV DECIDE, compared with an information fact sheet among mid-adults who have not received the HPV vaccine. Method: Participants were recruited between December 2023 and January 2024. We used a randomized Solomon, 4-group, pretest/posttest design with mid-adults aged 27 to 45 y who were unvaccinated for HPV and balanced based on sex (n = 612). The primary outcome was decisional conflict. Intermediate outcomes included knowledge, behavioral expectancies, self-efficacy, and perceived risk. Variables were measured using validated scales. Pretest sensitization was not present; intervention and control groups were compared. Fixed-effects inverse-variance weighting was used to pool effect estimates and determine meta-analytic statistical significance across tests with and without pretest controls. Results: Participants in the intervention group had significantly lower total decisional conflict scores (B = -3.58, P = 0.007) compared with the control group. Compared with the control group, participants in the intervention group showed higher knowledge (B = 0.48, P = 0.020), greater intention to receive (B = 0.196, P = 0.049) and discuss the HPV vaccine (B = 0.324, P ≤ 0.001), and greater self-efficacy about HPV vaccine decision making (B = 3.28, P = 0.043). There were no statistically significant results for perceived risks of HPV infection. Conclusions: The HPV DECIDE tool for mid-adult HPV vaccination shows promise for immediate reductions in decisional conflict and improvement in knowledge, intentions, and self-efficacy about the HPV vaccine. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of this patient decision aid tool in real-world settings. Highlights: Shared clinical decision making is recommended for HPV vaccination with mid-adults.A patient decision aid for HPV vaccination reduced decisional conflict for mid-adults. The HPV vaccine patient decision aid was acceptable to mid-adults.