Guiding individual decisions: A randomized, controlled trial of decision analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(88)90426-3Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open archive

Abstract

In early 1983, all 1,280 faculty and resident physicians at one hospital who were eligible to be vaccinated against hepatitis B were divided randomly into three groups: Group I physicians received general information about the risks and benefits of alternative vaccine decisions; Group 2 physicians were additionally invited to provide personal information for an individualized decision analysis (12.6 percent responded); and Group 3 physicians, who served as controls, were not contacted. In one year's follow-up, 20 percent of physicians were screened for hepatitis B antibody or vaccinated. More Group 2 physicians whose decision analyses recommended screening or vaccination took these actions (39 percent) than any other group. Group assignment remained significantly associated with vaccine decisions after analyzing results by the “intention to treat” principle, and alter adjusting for training status, exposure to blood and blood products, and pre-study intentions about the vaccine. Despite the low overall vaccine acceptance rate, it is concluded that individualized decision analysis can influence the clinical decisions taken by knowledgeable and interested patients.

Cited by (0)

Dr. Clancy was a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fellow in General Internal Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania when this study was conducted, and Drs. Cebul and Williams were Kaiser Faculty Scholars in General Internal Medicine.