Department of Internal Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174(10):1623-9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3331.
For stable angina, the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited to symptom relief, but patients often believe that PCI prevents myocardial infarction (MI). Whether presenting accurate information about the benefits of PCI would dispel these beliefs remains unknown. We hypothesized that explanatory information would be more effective for influencing volunteers' beliefs.
To assess the effect of explicit and explanatory information on participants' beliefs about PCI and their willingness to choose it.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a randomized trial in 2012 among adults older than 50 years living in the general community. We recruited participants using the Internet.
Participants read 1 of 3 scenarios in which they experienced class I angina and were referred to a cardiologist. The cardiologist provided no information about the effects of PCI on MI risk, a specific statement that PCI does not reduce MI risk, or an explanation of why PCI does not reduce MI risk.
Participants' beliefs about the benefit of PCI and choice of PCI and medication.
A total of 1257 participants (90.0%) completed the survey; 54.5% chose PCI. Compared with those receiving explicit and explanatory information, those receiving no information were most likely to believe that PCI prevents MI (71.0% vs 38.7% vs 30.6%, respectively; P < .001), most likely to choose PCI (69.4% vs 48.7% vs 45.7%, respectively; P < .001), and least likely to agree to medication therapy (83.1% vs 87.4% vs 92.3%, respectively; P < .001). Across the entire sample, the decision to have PCI was strongly correlated with the belief that PCI would prevent MI (odds ratio, 5.82 [95% CI, 4.13-8.26]) and that the participant would feel less worried (odds ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 3.87-7.45]), but was not associated with how much participants were limited by symptoms.
In the setting of mild, stable angina, most people assume PCI prevents MI and are likely to choose it. Explicit information can partially overcome that bias and influence decision making. Explanatory information was the most effective intervention in overcoming this bias.
对于稳定型心绞痛,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的益处仅限于缓解症状,但患者通常认为 PCI 可预防心肌梗死(MI)。提供关于 PCI 益处的准确信息是否会消除这些信念尚不清楚。我们假设解释性信息将更有效地影响志愿者的信念。
评估明确和解释性信息对参与者对 PCI 的信念及其选择 PCI 的意愿的影响。
设计、设置和参与者:我们于 2012 年在普通社区中年龄大于 50 岁的成年人中进行了一项随机试验。我们通过互联网招募参与者。
参与者阅读了 3 种场景中的 1 种,他们经历了 I 级心绞痛并被转介给心脏病专家。心脏病专家未提供有关 PCI 对 MI 风险影响的信息、PCI 不会降低 MI 风险的具体说明或解释 PCI 为何不会降低 MI 风险。
参与者对 PCI 益处的信念以及对 PCI 和药物的选择。
共有 1257 名参与者(90.0%)完成了调查;54.5%选择了 PCI。与接受明确和解释性信息的参与者相比,未接受信息的参与者最有可能认为 PCI 可预防 MI(分别为 71.0%、38.7%和 30.6%;P<0.001),最有可能选择 PCI(分别为 69.4%、48.7%和 45.7%;P<0.001),并且最不可能同意药物治疗(分别为 83.1%、87.4%和 92.3%;P<0.001)。在整个样本中,进行 PCI 的决定与认为 PCI 可预防 MI(比值比,5.82 [95%CI,4.13-8.26])和参与者感觉不那么担心(比值比,5.36 [95%CI,3.87-7.45])的信念密切相关,但与参与者受症状限制的程度无关。
在轻度稳定型心绞痛的情况下,大多数人认为 PCI 可预防 MI 并可能选择它。明确的信息可以部分克服这种偏见并影响决策。解释性信息是克服这种偏见最有效的干预措施。