A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 53, Issue 491, 2003, Pages 446-453

  Montgomery, Alan A ^a   Fahey, Tom ^b   Peters, Tim J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making tools; Hypertension; Patient choice; Randomised controlled trial

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRESCRIPTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; VIDEORECORDING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION;

EID: 0038579288     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Staessen JA, Wang JG, Thijs L. Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: A meta-analysis. Lancet 2001; 358: 1305-1315.
2. Core Services Committee. Guidelines for the Management of Mildly Raised Blood Pressure in New Zealand. Welllington: Core Services Committee, 1994. URL: www.nzgg.org.nz/library.gl_complete/bloodpressure/team.cfm (Accessed 14 April 2003.)
3. Joint National Committee. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1997.
4. Working Party of the British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association and British Hypertension Society. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 1998; 80 (Suppl. 2): S1-S29.
5. Montgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: The impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract 2001; 18: 309-313.
6. Thomson R, Parkin D, Eccles M, Sudlow M, Robinson A. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2000; 355: 956-962.
7. Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery AA, Peters TJ. The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: Observation study of patient-based decision analysis. BMJ 2000; 320: 1380-1384.
8. O'Connor AM, Stacy D, Rovner D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. In Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
9. Robinson A, Thomson RG. The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: The example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation. Qual Health Care 2000; 9: 238-244.
10. Edwards A, Elwyn G. The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical medicine. JAMA 1999; 282: 779-780.
11. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Eccles M, Rovner D. Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet 2001; 358: 571-574.
12. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1 - Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 125.
13. Sox HC, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical Decision Making. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1988.
14. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. U-titer: A utility assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. 1991; 701-705,.
15. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PWF, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1990; 121: 293-298.
16. TreeAge Software, Inc. Data 3.5 for Healthcare. Williamstown, MA. 1998.
17. What You Really Need to Know About High Blood Pressure. London: Videos for Patients, 1996.
18. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 25-30.
19. O'Connor AM. Decisional conflict scale. URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/OHDEC/dcs-doc.pdf (Accessed 14 April 2003.)
20. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992; 31: 301-306.
21. O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: Decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns 1998; 33: 267-279.
22. O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone therapy. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 295-303.
23. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. (Release 7.0). 2001 College Station, TX, Stata Corporation.
24. Naylor CD. Clinical decisions: From art to science and back again. Lancet 2001; 358: 523-524.
25. Jackson R. Which hypertensive patients should be treated? Lancet 1994; 343: 496-497.
26. Swales JD. Treating hypertension. J Hypertens 1996; 14: 813-814.
27. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: The pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 112-121.
28. Moskowitz AJ, Dunn VH, Lau J, Pauker SG. Can hypersimplified decision trees be used instead of Markov models? [Abstract.] Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 530
29. Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: Implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001; 10 (Suppl I): i34-i38