» Articles » PMID: 23129571

Clinical Effectiveness of a Patient Decision Aid to Improve Decision Quality and Glycaemic Control in People with Diabetes Making Treatment Choices: a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (PANDAs) in General Practice

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2012 Nov 7
PMID 23129571
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices using a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Design: A cluster RCT.

Setting: 49 general practices in UK randomised into intervention (n=25) and control (n=24).

Participants: General practices Inclusion criteria: >4 medical partners; list size >7000; and a diabetes register with >1% of practice population. 191 practices assessed for eligibility, and 49 practices randomised and completed the study. Patients People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) taking at least two oral glucose-lowering drugs with maximum tolerated dose with a glycosolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) greater than 7.4% (IFCC HbA1c >57 mmol/mol) or advised in the preceeding 6 months to add or consider changing to insulin therapy.

Exclusion Criteria: currently using insulin therapy; difficulty reading or understanding English; difficulty in understanding the purpose of the study; visual or cognitive impairment or mentally ill. A total of 182 assessed for eligibility, 175 randomised to 95 intervention and 80 controls, and 167 completion and anlaysis.

Intervention: Brief training of clinicians and use of PDA with patients in single consultation.

Primary Outcomes: Decision quality (Decisional Conflict Scores, knowledge, realistic expectations and autonomy) and glycaemic control (glycosolated haemoglobin, HbA1c).

Secondary Outcomes: Knowledge and realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of insulin therapy and diabetic complications.

Results: Intervention group: lower total Decisional Conflict Scores (17.4 vs 25.2, p<0.001); better knowledge (51.6% vs 28.8%, p<0.001); realistic expectations (risk of 'hypo', 'weight gain', 'complications'; 81.0% vs 5.2%, 70.5% vs 5.3%, 26.3% vs 5.0% respectively, p<0.001); and were more autonomous in decision-making (64.1% vs 42.9%, p=0.012). No significant difference in the glycaemic control between the two groups.

Conclusions: Use of the PANDAs decision aid reduces decisional conflict, improves knowledge, promotes realistic expectations and autonomy in people with diabetes making treatment choices in general practice. ISRCTN TRIALS REGISTER NUMBER: 14842077.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Geta E, Terefa D, Hailu W, Olani W, Merdassa E, Dessalegn M PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0306296.

PMID: 39083503 PMC: 11290692. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.


A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners.

Jaeken J, Billiouw C, Mertens L, Van Bostraeten P, Bekkering G, Vermandere M BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):592.

PMID: 38811922 PMC: 11137915. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05557-1.


Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Elias S, Chen Y, Liu X, Slone S, Turkson-Ocran R, Ogungbe B JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(3):e243779.

PMID: 38530311 PMC: 10966415. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3779.


Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol.

Knudsen B, Sondergaard S, Stacey D, Steffensen K BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):336.

PMID: 38475758 PMC: 10935979. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12086-z.


Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Stacey D, Lewis K, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas E Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 1:CD001431.

PMID: 38284415 PMC: 10823577. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.


References
1.
Degner L, Sloan J, Venkatesh P . The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1998; 29(3):21-43. View

2.
ODonnell S, Cranney A, Jacobsen M, Graham I, OConnor A, Tugwell P . Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006; 12(2):174-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00613.x. View

3.
Jeavons D, Hungin A, Cornford C . Patients with poorly controlled diabetes in primary care: healthcare clinicians' beliefs and attitudes. Postgrad Med J. 2006; 82(967):347-50. PMC: 2563795. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2005.039545. View

4.
Turner R, Cull C, Frighi V, Holman R . Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. JAMA. 1999; 281(21):2005-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.21.2005. View

5.
Elwyn G, OConnor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A . Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565):417. PMC: 1553508. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. View