Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the Ischemic Heart Disease Shared Decision-Making Program (IHD SDP) an interactive videodisc designed to assist patients in the decision-making process involving treatment choices for ischemic heart disease, on patient decision-making.

DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: The Toronto Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty ambulatory patients with ischemic heart disease amenable to elective revascularization and ongoing medical therapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. This was measured using the 12-item Decision-Making Process Questionnaire that was developed and validated in a randomized trial of the benign prostatic hyperplasia SDP. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge (measured using 20 questions about knowledge deemed necessary for an informed treatment decision), treatment decision, patient-angiographer agreement on decision, and general health scores. Outcomes were measured at the time of treatment decision and/or at 6 months follow-up. Shared decision-making program scores were similar for the intervention and control group (71% and 70%, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI] for 1% difference, −3% to 7%). The intervention group had higher knowledge scores (75% vs 62%; 95% CI for 13% difference, 8% to 18%). The intervention group chose to pursue revascularization less often (58% vs 75% for the controls; 95% CI for 17% difference, 4% to 31%). At 6 months, 52% of the intervention group and 66% of the controls had undergone revascularization (95% CI for 14% difference, 0% to 28%). General health and angina scores were not different between the groups at 6 months. Exposure to the IHD SDP resulted in more patient-angiographer disagreement about treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in satisfaction with decision-making process scores between the IHD SDP and usual practice groups. The IHD SDP patients were more knowledgeable, underwent less revascularization (interventional therapies), and demonstrated increased patient decision-making autonomy without apparent impact on quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: global burden of disease study. Lancet. 1997;349:1269–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Peters S, Chagani K, Paddon P, Nair C. Coronary artery bypass surgery in Canada. Health Reports. 1990;2:9–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ugnat AM, Naylor CD. Trends in coronary artery bypass grafting in Ontario from 1981 to 1989. CMAJ. 1993;148:569–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Peterson ED, Jollis JG, Bebchuk JD, et al. Changes in mortality after myocardial revascularization in the elderly: the national Medicare experience. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:919–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration [published erratum appears in Lancet 1994; 344:1446]. Lancet. 1994;344:563–70. Comments.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. King SB 3rd, Lemob NJ, Weintraub WS, et al. A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST). New Engl J Med. 1994;331:1044–50. Comments.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parisi AF, Folland ED, Hartigan P. A comparison of angioplasty with medical therapy in the treatment of single-vessel coronary artery disease. Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators. New Engl J Med. 1992;326:10–6. Comments.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez A, Boullon F, Perez-Balino N, Paviotti C, Liprandi MI, Palacios IF. Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. ERACI Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:1060–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, Rupprecht HJ, Berger J, Bleifeld W. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI). New Engl J Med. 1994;331:1037–43. Comments.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hillis LD, Rutherford JD. Coronary angioplasty compared with bypass grafting. New Engl J Med. 1994;331:1086–7. Editorial; Comment.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mark DB, Nelson CL, Califf RM, et al. Continuing evolution of therapy for coronary artery disease. Initial results from the era of coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1994;89:2015–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Lancet. 1993; 341:473–80.

  13. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1414–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kassirer JP. Adding insult to injury. Usurping patients’ prerogatives. New Engl J Med. 1983;308:898–901.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kasper JF, Mulley AG Jr, Wennberg JE. Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. QRB Quality Review Bull. 1992;58:183–90. Comment.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Levine MN, Gafni A, Markham B, MacFarlane D. A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient’s preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:53–8. Comment.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, Mulley AG Jr, Henderson JV Jr, Wennberg JE. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care. 1995;33:771–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wagner EH, Barrett P, Barry MJ, Barlow W, Fowler FJ Jr. The effect of a shared decision-making program on rates of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pilot results. Med Care. 1995;33:765–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barry MJ, Cherkin DC, Chang Y, Fowler FJ Jr, Skates S. A randomized trial of a multimedia shared decision-making program for men facing a treatment decision for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Dis Manage Clin Outcomes. 1997;1:5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liao L, Jollis JG, DeLong ER, Peterson ED, Morris KG, Mark DB. Impact of an interactive video on decision making of patients with ischemic heart disease. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:373–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernstein SJ, Skarupski KA, Grayson CE, Starling MR, Bates ER, Eagle KA. A randomized controlled trial of information-giving to patients referred for coronary angiography: effects on outcomes of care. Health Expectations. 1998;1:50–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pryor DB, DeLong ER. Final Report: Ischemic Heart Disease Program Outcomes Research Team Project (IHD Port) HS 06503. Durham, NC: Duke University Medical Center; 1997:69.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54:522–3. Letter.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cohen J. Statistical Peer Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jaglal SB, Goel V, Naylor CD. Sex differences in the use of invasive coronary procedures in Ontario. Can J Card. 1994;10:239–44. Review.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jaglal SB, Slaughter PM, Baigrie RS, Morgan CD, Naylor CD. Good judgment or sex bias in the referral of patients for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease? An exploratory study. CMAJ. 1995;152:873–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew W. Morgan MD, MSc.

Additional information

This research was funded in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (Grant NA3039). Dr. Llewellyn-Thomas is a National Health Scholar supported by the National Health Research & Development Program of Health Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morgan, M.W., Deber, R.B., Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A. et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease. J GEN INTERN MED 15, 685–693 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.91139.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.91139.x

Key Words

Navigation