Suppr超能文献

一项针对新诊断高血压患者的决策分析以及信息视频加传单的析因随机对照试验。

A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.

作者信息

Montgomery Alan A, Fahey Tom, Peters Tim J

机构信息

Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol BS6 6JL.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2003 Jun;53(491):446-53.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence regarding the value of tools designed to aid decision making in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension.

AIM

To evaluate two interventions for assisting newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in the decision whether to start drug therapy for reducing blood pressure.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Twenty-one general practices in south-west England, UK.

METHOD

Adults aged 32 to 80 years with newly diagnosed hypertension were randomised to receive either: (a) computerised utility assessment interview with individualized risk assessment and decision analysis; or (b) information video and leaflet about high blood pressure; or (c) both interventions; or (d) neither intervention. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge, state anxiety, intentions regarding starting treatment, and actual treatment decision.

RESULTS

Of 217 patients randomised, 212 (98%) were analysed at the primary follow-up (mean age = 59 years, 49% female). Decision analysis patients had lower decisional conflict than those who did not receive this intervention (27.6 versus 38.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] for adjusted difference = -13.0 to -5.8, P < 0.001), greater knowledge about hypertension (73% versus 67%, adjusted 95% CI = 2% to 9%, P = 0.003) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (34.8 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -5.6 to 0.1, P = 0.055). Video/leaflet patients had lower decisional conflict than corresponding controls (30.3 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -7.4 to -0.6, P = 0.021), greater knowledge (75% versus 65%, adjusted 95% CI = 6% to 13%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (35.7 versus 36.1, adjusted 95% CI = -3.9 to 1.7, P = 0.46). There were no differences between either of the interventions and their respective controls in the proportion of patients prescribed antihypertensive medication (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates that, among patients facing a real treatment decision, interventions to inform patients about hypertension and to clarify patients' values concerning outcomes of treatment are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge, while not resulting in any increases in state anxiety.

摘要

背景

缺乏关于旨在帮助新诊断高血压患者进行决策的工具价值的证据。

目的

评估两种干预措施,以协助新诊断的高血压患者决定是否开始药物治疗以降低血压。

研究设计

析因随机对照试验。

研究地点

英国英格兰西南部的21家全科诊所。

方法

年龄在32至80岁之间的新诊断高血压成人被随机分配接受以下任一干预措施:(a)计算机化效用评估访谈及个性化风险评估和决策分析;(b)关于高血压的信息视频和宣传册;(c)两种干预措施;或(d)不采取任何干预措施。结局指标包括决策冲突、知识、状态焦虑、开始治疗的意向以及实际治疗决策。

结果

在随机分组的217例患者中,212例(98%)在首次随访时进行了分析(平均年龄 = 59岁,49%为女性)。接受决策分析的患者的决策冲突低于未接受该干预措施的患者(27.6对38.9,调整后差异的95%置信区间[CI] = -13.0至-5.8,P < 0.001),对高血压的了解更多(73%对67%,调整后的95%CI = 2%至9%,P = 0.003),且无状态焦虑增加的证据(34.8对36.8,调整后的95%CI = -5.6至0.1,P = 0.055)。观看视频/阅读宣传册的患者的决策冲突低于相应对照组(30.3对36.8,调整后的95%CI = -7.4至-0.6,P = 0.021),知识更丰富(75%对65%,调整后的95%CI = 6%至13%,P < 0.001),且无状态焦虑增加的证据(35.7对36.1,调整后的95%CI = -3.9至1.7,P = 0.46)。在接受降压药物治疗的患者比例方面,两种干预措施及其各自的对照组之间均无差异(67%)。

结论

本试验表明,在面临实际治疗决策的患者中,告知患者有关高血压的信息并阐明患者对治疗结果的价值观的干预措施可有效降低决策冲突并增加患者知识,同时不会导致状态焦虑增加。

相似文献

4
Decision analysis for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients: a qualitative investigation.
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 May;53(2):197-203. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00148-4.
5
Randomized trial of a video-based patient decision aid for bariatric surgery.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Aug;19(8):1669-75. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.65. Epub 2011 Apr 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Hypertension: Results From the RICH LIFE Project.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 May 6;14(9):e036664. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036664. Epub 2025 Apr 23.
2
Multiethnic Perspectives of Shared Decision-Making in Hypertension: A Mixed-Methods Study.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2024 Jul 16;13(14):e032568. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.032568. Epub 2024 Jul 11.
3
Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Mar 4;7(3):e243779. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3779.
4
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
5
Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.
Eur Heart J. 2024 Mar 27;45(12):998-1013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae002.
6
Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):801-820. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211037946.
9
Why evidence still matters to general practice: James Mackenzie Lecture 2019.
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):198-199. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X709241. Print 2020 Apr.

本文引用的文献

2
The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems.
Health Expect. 2002 Mar;5(1):16-27. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00160.x.
3
Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis.
Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1305-15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06411-X.
5
Decision analysis in patient care.
Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):571-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05709-9.
6
Clinical decisions: from art to science and back again.
Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):523-4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05743-9.
7
Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice.
Fam Pract. 2001 Jun;18(3):309-13. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.3.309.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验