4.3 Article

Shared decision-making following disclosure of coronary heart disease genetic risk: results from a randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 681-688

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1136/jim-2016-000318

Keywords

Coronary Artery Disease; Polymorphism; Genetic; Clinical Research; Risk

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [U01HG04599, U01HG006379]
  2. Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine
  3. Center for Clinical and Translational Science [UL1TR000135]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45-65years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients' satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration number NCT01936675; Results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available