Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2019 article

Pilot Study Examining Feasibility and Comparing the Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial

9Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
5Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background. There are many patient decision aids (DAs) available, yet there is limited evidence on comparative effectiveness of different tools. Objective. To examine feasibility of a study protocol and gather preliminary data on comparative effectiveness. Methods. Adult patients seeing a surgeon to discuss treatment for hip or knee osteoarthritis were randomized to hip and knee DAs from two vendors. Pre-visit survey included Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument, DA usage, health literacy, and quality of life (EQ-5D). Surgical status was ascertained 6 months post-visit. We examined response rates, eligibility, and compared the two DAs on amount of use, knowledge scores, and receipt of preferred treatment. Results. Overall response rate was 58/74 (78%) and did not differ by study arm. More patients in DA-A group reported reviewing all the DAs (64.5% DA-A v. 24.0% DA-B, P = 0.003). Knowledge scores were similar across arms (55.2% DA-A v. 48.8% DA-B, P = 0.4). For DA-B, knowledge scores were higher for those who reviewed all the DAs compared with those who did not (80% knowledge v. 39% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.004), while scores for DA-A did not vary by usage (62% knowledge v. 53% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.3). A similar percentage of each group received their preferred treatment (77% v. 73%, P = 0.8). Patients who were unsure about preferred treatment at baseline were more likely to have surgery in the DA-A arm compared with the DA-B arm (55% v. 20%, P = 0.1). Limitations. Small sample; patients were only surveyed pre-visit. Conclusion. Despite having different content and formats, the two DAs had similar overall effectiveness. Patients were more likely to review all of DA-A; however, patients who reviewed all of DA-B had the highest knowledge scores.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Pilot Study Examining Feasibility and Comparing the Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial
Date Crossref
01/01/2019
Éditeur
SAGE Publications
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • Massachusetts General Hospital Division of General Internal Medicine pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Decision Sciences (United States) pays non établi dans la notice
    Entreprise
  • Harvard University pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Newton Wellesley Hospital Kaplan Joint Center pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • Kaplan (United States) pays non établi dans la notice
    Entreprise
  • Harvard Medical School pays non établi dans la notice
    Institution

Division of General Internal Medicine — Massachusetts General Hospital, Decision Sciences (United States) et Harvard University, avec 3 autres affiliations.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.