Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients

A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

Kristin L. Rising, Judd E. Hollander, Jason T. Schaffer, Jeffrey A. Kline, Carlos A. Torres, Deborah B. Diercks, Russell Jones, Kelly P. Owen, Zachary F. Meisel, Michel Demers, Annie Leblanc, Nilay D Shah, Jonathan Inselman, Jeph Herrin, Victor Manuel Montori, Erik P. Hess

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)69-78
Number of pages10
JournalMedical Decision Making
Volume38
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Chest Pain
Multicenter Studies
Health Literacy
Education
Physicians
Decision Making
Patient Transfer
Minority Groups
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Insurance
Control Groups

Keywords

  • acute coronary syndrome
  • decision making
  • healthcare disparities

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Rising, K. L., Hollander, J. E., Schaffer, J. T., Kline, J. A., Torres, C. A., Diercks, D. B., ... Hess, E. P. (2018). Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial. Medical Decision Making, 38(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17706363

Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients : A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial. / Rising, Kristin L.; Hollander, Judd E.; Schaffer, Jason T.; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Torres, Carlos A.; Diercks, Deborah B.; Jones, Russell; Owen, Kelly P.; Meisel, Zachary F.; Demers, Michel; Leblanc, Annie; Shah, Nilay D; Inselman, Jonathan; Herrin, Jeph; Montori, Victor Manuel; Hess, Erik P.

In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 38, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 69-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rising, KL, Hollander, JE, Schaffer, JT, Kline, JA, Torres, CA, Diercks, DB, Jones, R, Owen, KP, Meisel, ZF, Demers, M, Leblanc, A, Shah, ND, Inselman, J, Herrin, J, Montori, VM & Hess, EP 2018, 'Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial', Medical Decision Making, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17706363
Rising, Kristin L. ; Hollander, Judd E. ; Schaffer, Jason T. ; Kline, Jeffrey A. ; Torres, Carlos A. ; Diercks, Deborah B. ; Jones, Russell ; Owen, Kelly P. ; Meisel, Zachary F. ; Demers, Michel ; Leblanc, Annie ; Shah, Nilay D ; Inselman, Jonathan ; Herrin, Jeph ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Hess, Erik P. / Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients : A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial. In: Medical Decision Making. 2018 ; Vol. 38, No. 1. pp. 69-78.
@article{26babaef95bf497faa440a22178ed851,
title = "Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial",
abstract = "Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50{\%} were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60{\%} had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6{\%} v. 4.7{\%}, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9{\%}, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7{\%} v. –1.4{\%}, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.",
keywords = "acute coronary syndrome, decision making, healthcare disparities",
author = "Rising, {Kristin L.} and Hollander, {Judd E.} and Schaffer, {Jason T.} and Kline, {Jeffrey A.} and Torres, {Carlos A.} and Diercks, {Deborah B.} and Russell Jones and Owen, {Kelly P.} and Meisel, {Zachary F.} and Michel Demers and Annie Leblanc and Shah, {Nilay D} and Jonathan Inselman and Jeph Herrin and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Hess, {Erik P.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X17706363",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "69--78",
journal = "Medical Decision Making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients

T2 - A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

AU - Rising, Kristin L.

AU - Hollander, Judd E.

AU - Schaffer, Jason T.

AU - Kline, Jeffrey A.

AU - Torres, Carlos A.

AU - Diercks, Deborah B.

AU - Jones, Russell

AU - Owen, Kelly P.

AU - Meisel, Zachary F.

AU - Demers, Michel

AU - Leblanc, Annie

AU - Shah, Nilay D

AU - Inselman, Jonathan

AU - Herrin, Jeph

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Hess, Erik P.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

AB - Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

KW - acute coronary syndrome

KW - decision making

KW - healthcare disparities

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X17706363

DO - 10.1177/0272989X17706363

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 69

EP - 78

JO - Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical Decision Making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 1

ER -