4.4 Article

Development and Pilot Testing of Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Barrett's Esophagus With Low-Grade Dysplasia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 36-42

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001319

关键词

shared decision making; decision aid; Barrett’ s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia

资金

  1. Mayo Clinic GIH Research award from Mayo Clinic's Gastroenterology and Hepatology Division, Rochester, MN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to develop an encounter decision aid for managing BE-LGD and evaluate its impact on patient-important outcomes. Divided into two phases, the research showed that BE-Choice significantly improved patient knowledge, decisional comfort, and patient involvement compared to usual care. Further multicenter trials are needed to confirm and promote the widespread use of BE-Choice.
Goals: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Background: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Study: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Results: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01). Conclusions: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据