Patient education and counseling · 2021
Effectiveness of shared decision-making intervention in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: A randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Chia-Hsien, Kang Yi-No, Chiu Po-Yao, Huang Yi-Jing, Elwyn Glyn, Wu Meng-Huang, Kang Jiunn-Horng, Hou Wen-Hsuan, Kuo Ken N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of shared decision-making (SDM) intervention among patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) in terms of decision self-efficacy, control preferences, SDM process, decision satisfaction, and conflict.
METHODS: A total of 130 outpatients with LDDs recruited from orthopedic or rehabilitation clinics were randomly assigned to the SDM intervention (n = 67) or comparison (n = 63) groups. Patients in the intervention group received decision aids (DAs) with decision coaching and those in controlled group received standard educational materials from a health educator. The primary outcome was decision self-efficacy, and secondary outcomes were control preference, SDM process, conflict, and satisfaction.
RESULTS: The SDM intervention significantly improved decision self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] = 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.5, partial η2 = 0.05) and reduced conflict (MD = -7.0, 95% CI: -12.2 to -1.9, partial η2 = 0.06), especially in patients without family involvement, compared with the health education group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION: SDM intervention improved SDM self-efficacy and reduced conflict in patients with LDDs.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians can integrate DAs and decision coaching in SDM conversations. SDM intervention seems to engage patients in decision-making, especially those without family involvement.
METHODS: A total of 130 outpatients with LDDs recruited from orthopedic or rehabilitation clinics were randomly assigned to the SDM intervention (n = 67) or comparison (n = 63) groups. Patients in the intervention group received decision aids (DAs) with decision coaching and those in controlled group received standard educational materials from a health educator. The primary outcome was decision self-efficacy, and secondary outcomes were control preference, SDM process, conflict, and satisfaction.
RESULTS: The SDM intervention significantly improved decision self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] = 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.5, partial η2 = 0.05) and reduced conflict (MD = -7.0, 95% CI: -12.2 to -1.9, partial η2 = 0.06), especially in patients without family involvement, compared with the health education group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION: SDM intervention improved SDM self-efficacy and reduced conflict in patients with LDDs.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians can integrate DAs and decision coaching in SDM conversations. SDM intervention seems to engage patients in decision-making, especially those without family involvement.