Clinical effectiveness of a patient decision aid to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices: a cluster randomised controlled trial (PANDAs) in general practice

Objective To determine the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices using a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design A cluster RCT. Setting 49 general practices in UK randomised into intervention (n=25) and control (n=24). Participants General practices Inclusion criteria: >4 medical partners; list size >7000; and a diabetes register with >1% of practice population. 191 practices assessed for eligibility, and 49 practices randomised and completed the study. Patients People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) taking at least two oral glucose-lowering drugs with maximum tolerated dose with a glycosolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) greater than 7.4% (IFCC HbA1c >57 mmol/mol) or advised in the preceeding 6 months to add or consider changing to insulin therapy. Exclusion criteria: currently using insulin therapy; difficulty reading or understanding English; difficulty in understanding the purpose of the study; visual or cognitive impairment or mentally ill. A total of 182 assessed for eligibility, 175 randomised to 95 intervention and 80 controls, and 167 completion and analysis. Intervention Brief training of clinicians and use of PDA with patients in single consultation. Primary outcomes Decision quality (Decisional Conflict Scores, knowledge, realistic expectations and autonomy) and glycaemic control (glycosolated haemoglobin, HbA1c). Secondary outcomes Knowledge and realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of insulin therapy and diabetic complications. Results Intervention group: lower total Decisional Conflict Scores (17.4 vs 25.2, p<0.001); better knowledge (51.6% vs 28.8%, p<0.001); realistic expectations (risk of ‘hypo’, ‘weight gain’, ‘complications’; 81.0% vs 5.2%, 70.5% vs 5.3%, 26.3% vs 5.0% respectively, p<0.001); and were more autonomous in decision-making (64.1% vs 42.9%, p=0.012). No significant difference in the glycaemic control between the two groups. Conclusions Use of the PANDAs decision aid reduces decisional conflict, improves knowledge, promotes realistic expectations and autonomy in people with diabetes making treatment choices in general practice. ISRCTN Trials Register Number 14842077.

[1]  P Tugwell,et al.  A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. , 1998, Patient education and counseling.

[2]  Siobhan O'Donnell,et al.  Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. , 2006, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[3]  Alicia O'Cathain,et al.  Evaluating decision aids – where next? , 2004, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[4]  A. O'Connor Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[5]  D. Chao Clinical guidelines in primary care: a survey of general practitioners' attitudes and behaviour. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  J A Sloan,et al.  The Control Preferences Scale. , 1997, The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres.

[8]  France Légaré,et al.  Primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[9]  Deb Feldman-Stewart,et al.  Validation of a Decision Regret Scale , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[10]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice. , 2007, Health affairs.

[11]  A. Hungin,et al.  Patients with poorly controlled diabetes in primary care: healthcare clinicians’ beliefs and attitudes , 2006, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[12]  G. Ironson,et al.  Measuring the Involvement of People with HIV in Treatment Decision Making Using the Control Preferences Scale , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  C. Ng,et al.  Improving recruitment to primary care trials: some lessons from the use of modern marketing techniques. , 2012, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[15]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[16]  T. Tammela,et al.  A randomized trial of the choice of treatment in prostate cancer: design and baseline characteristics , 2001, BJU international.

[17]  Uk-Prospective-Diabetes-Study-Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) , 1998, The Lancet.

[18]  R. Holman,et al.  Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. , 1999, JAMA.

[19]  Andrew Cole,et al.  Cancer expert doubts claims about prostate cancer trial , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[21]  Ann Louise Kinmonth,et al.  General practice Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice : impact on current wellbeing and future disease risk , 1998 .

[22]  Degner Lf,et al.  Information and decision-making preferences of men with prostate cancer. , 1995 .

[23]  Jesse C. Crosson,et al.  Barriers to Insulin Initiation , 2010, Diabetes Care.

[24]  E H Wagner,et al.  Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? , 1998, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

[25]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  R. Holman,et al.  Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. , 1998 .

[27]  T R Morgan,et al.  Information and decision-making preferences of men with prostate cancer. , 1995, Oncology nursing forum.

[28]  R. Mori,et al.  Diagnosis of UTI: results of an evidence based approach to guideline development carried out for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) , 2008 .

[29]  J. Paling Strategies to help patients understand risks , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  G. Piaggio,et al.  Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  A Coulter,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  S. Heller,et al.  Training in flexible, intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes: dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) randomised controlled trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  Rury R. Holman,et al.  Glycemic Control with Diet, Sulfonylurea, Metformin, or Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Progressive Requirement for Multiple Therapies (UKPDS 49) , 1999 .

[34]  D. Altman,et al.  CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.