Jegan Nikita Roman A, Kürwitz Sarah Anna, Kramer Lena Kathrin, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner Monika, Adarkwah Charles Christian, Popert Uwe, Donner-Banzhoff Norbert
Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Str. 4, 35032, Marburg, Germany.
MH Statistical Consulting, Marburg, Germany.
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jun 9;19(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0766-x.
This study investigated the effects of three different risk displays used in a cardiovascular risk calculator on patients' motivation for shared decision-making (SDM). We compared a newly developed time-to-event (TTE) display with two established absolute risk displays (i.e. emoticons and bar charts). The accessibility, that is, how understandable, helpful, and trustworthy patients found each display, was also investigated.
We analysed a sample of 353 patients recruited in general practices. After giving consent, patients were introduced to one of three fictional vignettes with low, medium or high cardiovascular risk. All three risk displays were shown in a randomized order. Patients were asked to rate each display with regard to motivation for SDM and accessibility. Two-factorial repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to compare the displays and investigate possible interactions with age.
Regarding motivation for SDM, the TTE elicited the highest motivation, followed by the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001). The displays had no differential influence on the age groups (p = .445). While the TTE was generally rated more accessible than the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001), the emoticons were only superior to the bar chart in the younger subsample. However, this was only to a small effect (interaction between display and age, p < .01, η = 0.018).
Using fictional case vignettes, the novel TTE display was superior regarding motivation for SDM and accessibility when compared to established displays using emoticons and a bar chart. If future research can replicate these results in real-life consultations, the TTE display will be a valuable addition to current risk calculators and decision aids by improving patients' participation.
本研究调查了心血管风险计算器中使用的三种不同风险显示方式对患者共同决策(SDM)积极性的影响。我们将新开发的事件发生时间(TTE)显示方式与两种已确立的绝对风险显示方式(即表情符号和柱状图)进行了比较。还研究了每种显示方式的可及性,即患者认为其易懂、有用和可信的程度。
我们分析了从普通诊所招募的353名患者的样本。在获得同意后,向患者介绍了三个虚构的案例,分别具有低、中、高心血管风险。所有三种风险显示方式均以随机顺序展示。要求患者对每种显示方式在SDM积极性和可及性方面进行评分。进行双因素重复测量方差分析以比较这些显示方式,并研究与年龄可能存在的交互作用。
关于SDM的积极性,TTE引发的积极性最高,其次是表情符号和柱状图(p <.001)。这些显示方式对不同年龄组没有差异影响(p =.445)。虽然TTE总体上比表情符号和柱状图的可及性评分更高(p <.001),但表情符号仅在较年轻的子样本中优于柱状图。然而,这种差异较小(显示方式与年龄之间的交互作用,p <.01,η = 0.018)。
使用虚构案例,与使用表情符号和柱状图的既定显示方式相比,新型TTE显示方式在SDM积极性和可及性方面更具优势。如果未来的研究能够在现实生活咨询中复制这些结果,TTE显示方式将通过提高患者参与度,为当前的风险计算器和决策辅助工具增添有价值的内容。