A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions

Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.) 2021-04, Vol.46 (4), p.338.e1-338.e15
Hauptverfasser: Kleiss, Iris I.M., Kortlever, Joost T.P., Ring, David, Vagner, Gregg A., Reichel, Lee M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 338.e15
container_issue 4
container_start_page 338.e1
container_title The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)
container_volume 46
creator Kleiss, Iris I.M.
Kortlever, Joost T.P.
Ring, David
Vagner, Gregg A.
Reichel, Lee M.
description Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice. We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure. People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit compared with those who did not. High pain self-efficacy was associated with lower likelihood to choose surgery during the initial visit, better physical function rates, and lower reported pain. Decision aids reduce decision regret, which suggests that they help people organize their thoughts and make decisions more consistent with their values. Hand surgeons can consider the use of DAs as a method for improving the quality of shared decisions.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2458955537</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S036350232030530X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2458955537</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-e9cd210b6bfd73f7d10aabc1afccfe23988220374d2bdac53be4da2f33abf2dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtP4zAURi00CMrjD7AYZckm4dq3ThqJTVXKQwIhIVhbjn0tXCVxx04R8OtJVWA5K9_FOZ_kw9gZh4IDLy9Wxeo16UKAgALqAgD32IRL5Hkpy-kfNgEsMZcg8JAdpbQCGC2UB-wQkZdCVDBhD_PsSfc2dP6TbLYI_RBD247nc_S6zYLLrsj45EOfzb1NmQsxe1mvKebL9yFS54ePrWX9MCLphO073SY6_X6P2cv18nlxm98_3twt5ve5QVkOOdXGCg5N2ThboassB60bw7UzxpHAejYTArCaWtFYbSQ2NLVaOETdOGENHrPz3e46hn8bSoPqfDLUtrqnsElKTOWsllJiNaJih5oYUork1Dr6TscPxUFtM6qV2mZU24wKajVmHKW_3_ubpiP7q_x0G4HLHUDjL988RZWMp96Q9ZHMoGzw_9v_AlvlhKk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2458955537</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Kleiss, Iris I.M. ; Kortlever, Joost T.P. ; Ring, David ; Vagner, Gregg A. ; Reichel, Lee M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kleiss, Iris I.M. ; Kortlever, Joost T.P. ; Ring, David ; Vagner, Gregg A. ; Reichel, Lee M.</creatorcontrib><description>Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice. We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure. People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit compared with those who did not. High pain self-efficacy was associated with lower likelihood to choose surgery during the initial visit, better physical function rates, and lower reported pain. Decision aids reduce decision regret, which suggests that they help people organize their thoughts and make decisions more consistent with their values. Hand surgeons can consider the use of DAs as a method for improving the quality of shared decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-5023</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-6564</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33162270</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Decision aids ; decision regret ; physical function ; randomized controlled trial ; treatment choice</subject><ispartof>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.), 2021-04, Vol.46 (4), p.338.e1-338.e15</ispartof><rights>2021 American Society for Surgery of the Hand</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-e9cd210b6bfd73f7d10aabc1afccfe23988220374d2bdac53be4da2f33abf2dc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-e9cd210b6bfd73f7d10aabc1afccfe23988220374d2bdac53be4da2f33abf2dc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6506-4879</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33162270$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kleiss, Iris I.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kortlever, Joost T.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ring, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vagner, Gregg A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichel, Lee M.</creatorcontrib><title>A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions</title><title>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</title><addtitle>J Hand Surg Am</addtitle><description>Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice. We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure. People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit compared with those who did not. High pain self-efficacy was associated with lower likelihood to choose surgery during the initial visit, better physical function rates, and lower reported pain. Decision aids reduce decision regret, which suggests that they help people organize their thoughts and make decisions more consistent with their values. Hand surgeons can consider the use of DAs as a method for improving the quality of shared decisions.</description><subject>Decision aids</subject><subject>decision regret</subject><subject>physical function</subject><subject>randomized controlled trial</subject><subject>treatment choice</subject><issn>0363-5023</issn><issn>1531-6564</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtP4zAURi00CMrjD7AYZckm4dq3ThqJTVXKQwIhIVhbjn0tXCVxx04R8OtJVWA5K9_FOZ_kw9gZh4IDLy9Wxeo16UKAgALqAgD32IRL5Hkpy-kfNgEsMZcg8JAdpbQCGC2UB-wQkZdCVDBhD_PsSfc2dP6TbLYI_RBD247nc_S6zYLLrsj45EOfzb1NmQsxe1mvKebL9yFS54ePrWX9MCLphO073SY6_X6P2cv18nlxm98_3twt5ve5QVkOOdXGCg5N2ThboassB60bw7UzxpHAejYTArCaWtFYbSQ2NLVaOETdOGENHrPz3e46hn8bSoPqfDLUtrqnsElKTOWsllJiNaJih5oYUork1Dr6TscPxUFtM6qV2mZU24wKajVmHKW_3_ubpiP7q_x0G4HLHUDjL988RZWMp96Q9ZHMoGzw_9v_AlvlhKk</recordid><startdate>202104</startdate><enddate>202104</enddate><creator>Kleiss, Iris I.M.</creator><creator>Kortlever, Joost T.P.</creator><creator>Ring, David</creator><creator>Vagner, Gregg A.</creator><creator>Reichel, Lee M.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-4879</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202104</creationdate><title>A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions</title><author>Kleiss, Iris I.M. ; Kortlever, Joost T.P. ; Ring, David ; Vagner, Gregg A. ; Reichel, Lee M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-e9cd210b6bfd73f7d10aabc1afccfe23988220374d2bdac53be4da2f33abf2dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Decision aids</topic><topic>decision regret</topic><topic>physical function</topic><topic>randomized controlled trial</topic><topic>treatment choice</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kleiss, Iris I.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kortlever, Joost T.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ring, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vagner, Gregg A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichel, Lee M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kleiss, Iris I.M.</au><au>Kortlever, Joost T.P.</au><au>Ring, David</au><au>Vagner, Gregg A.</au><au>Reichel, Lee M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</jtitle><addtitle>J Hand Surg Am</addtitle><date>2021-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>338.e1</spage><epage>338.e15</epage><pages>338.e1-338.e15</pages><issn>0363-5023</issn><eissn>1531-6564</eissn><abstract>Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice. We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure. People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit compared with those who did not. High pain self-efficacy was associated with lower likelihood to choose surgery during the initial visit, better physical function rates, and lower reported pain. Decision aids reduce decision regret, which suggests that they help people organize their thoughts and make decisions more consistent with their values. Hand surgeons can consider the use of DAs as a method for improving the quality of shared decisions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>33162270</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.003</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-4879</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0363-5023
ispartof The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.), 2021-04, Vol.46 (4), p.338.e1-338.e15
issn 0363-5023
1531-6564
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2458955537
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Decision aids
decision regret
physical function
randomized controlled trial
treatment choice
title A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T07%3A45%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial%20of%20Decision%20Aids%20for%20Upper-Extremity%20Conditions&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20hand%20surgery%20(American%20ed.)&rft.au=Kleiss,%20Iris%20I.M.&rft.date=2021-04&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=338.e1&rft.epage=338.e15&rft.pages=338.e1-338.e15&rft.issn=0363-5023&rft.eissn=1531-6564&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.09.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2458955537%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2458955537&rft_id=info:pmid/33162270&rft_els_id=S036350232030530X&rfr_iscdi=true