Thomson Richard G, Eccles Martin P, Steen I Nick, Greenaway Jane, Stobbart Lynne, Murtagh Madeleine J, May Carl R
Institute of Health and Society, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Jun;16(3):216-23. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.018481.
To determine the efficacy of a computerised decision aid in patients with atrial fibrillation making decisions on whether to take warfarin or aspirin therapy.
Two-armed open exploratory randomised controlled trial.
Two research clinics deriving participants from general practices in Northeast England.
109 patients with atrial fibrillation aged over 60.
Computerised decision aid applied in shared decision-making clinic compared to evidence-based paper guidelines applied as direct advice.
Primary outcome measure was the decision conflict scale. Secondary outcome measures included anxiety, knowledge, decision-making preference, treatment decision, use of primary and secondary care services and health outcomes.
Decision conflict was lower in the computerised decision aid group immediately after the clinic; mean difference -0.18 (95% CI -0.34 to -0.01). Participants in this group not already on warfarin were much less likely to start warfarin than those in the guidelines arm (4/16, 25% compared to the guidelines group 15/16, 93.8%, RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.63).
Decision conflict was lower immediately following the use of a computerised decision aid in a shared decision-making consultation than immediately following direct doctor-led advice based on paper guidelines. Furthermore, participants in the computerised decision aid group were significantly much less likely to start warfarin than those in the guidelines arm. The results show that such an approach has a positive impact on decision conflict comparable to other studies of decision aids, but also reduces the uptake of a clinically effective treatment that may have important implications for health outcomes.
确定一种计算机化决策辅助工具对于房颤患者在决定是否采用华法林或阿司匹林治疗时的效果。
双臂开放性探索性随机对照试验。
两家从英格兰东北部全科医疗中招募参与者的研究诊所。
109名年龄超过60岁的房颤患者。
在共同决策诊所应用计算机化决策辅助工具,并与作为直接建议应用的循证纸质指南进行比较。
主要结局指标为决策冲突量表。次要结局指标包括焦虑、知识、决策偏好、治疗决策、初级和二级医疗服务的使用情况以及健康结局。
在诊后即刻,计算机化决策辅助工具组的决策冲突较低;平均差值为-0.18(95%置信区间为-0.34至-0.01)。该组中尚未使用华法林的参与者开始使用华法林的可能性远低于指南组(4/16,25%,而指南组为15/16,93.8%,相对危险度0.27,95%置信区间为0.11至0.63)。
在共同决策咨询中使用计算机化决策辅助工具后即刻的决策冲突低于基于纸质指南由医生直接提供建议后的即刻冲突。此外,计算机化决策辅助工具组的参与者开始使用华法林的可能性显著低于指南组。结果表明,这种方法对决策冲突有积极影响,与其他决策辅助工具研究相当,但也降低了一种可能对健康结局有重要影响的临床有效治疗方法(华法林)的采用率。