Back to Search Start Over

Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors :
Kennedy AD
Sculpher MJ
Coulter A
Dwyer N
Rees M
Abrams KR
Horsley S
Cowley D
Kidson C
Kirwin C
Naish C
Stirrat G
Source :
JAMA [JAMA] 2002 Dec 04; Vol. 288 (21), pp. 2701-8.
Publication Year :
2002

Abstract

Context: Decision aids can increase patient involvement in treatment decision making. However, questions remain regarding their effects and cost implications.<br />Objective: To evaluate the effects of information, with and without a structured preference elicitation interview, on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs.<br />Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up. Between October 1996 and February 1998, 894 women with uncomplicated menorrhagia were recruited from 6 hospitals in southwest England. Women were randomized to the control group, information alone group (information), or information plus interview group (interview).<br />Interventions: Women in both intervention groups were sent an information pack (a booklet and complementary videotape) 6 weeks before their specialist consultation. Immediately before their consultation, women in the interview group underwent structured interview, to clarify and elicit their preferences.<br />Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported health status was the main outcome; secondary outcomes included treatments received and costs. Cost analyses adopted a UK health service (payer) perspective, and were based on patient-reported resource use data and are reported in 1999-2000 US dollars.<br />Results: The interventions had no consistent effect on health status. Hysterectomy rates were lower for women in the interview group (38%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.96) than in the control group (48%) and women who received the information alone (48%) (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82). The interview group had lower mean costs ($1566) than the control group ($2751) (mean difference, $1184; 95% CI, $684-$2110) and the information group $2026 (mean difference, $461; 95% CI, $236-$696).<br />Conclusions: Neither intervention had an effect on health status. Providing women with information alone did not affect treatment choices; however, the addition of an interview to clarify values and elicit preferences had a significant effect on women's management and resulted in reduced costs.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
0098-7484
Volume :
288
Issue :
21
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
JAMA
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
12460093
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.21.2701