Effectiveness of a Computerized Decision Aid in Primary Care on Decision Making and Quality of Life in Menorrhagia: Results of the MENTIP Randomized Controlled Trial

Joanne Protheroe, Peter Bower, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Tim J. Peters and Tom Fahey
Additional contact information
Joanne Protheroe: National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, j.protheroe@manchester.ac.uk
Peter Bower: National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Carolyn Chew-Graham: Rusholme Academic Unit, School of Community Based Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Tim J. Peters: Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Tom Fahey: Division of Community Health Services, University of Dundee, Mackenzie Building, Dundee, United Kingdom

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 5, 575-584

Abstract: Background. Computerized decision aids have the potential to increase patient involvement in the decision-making process. However, most published evidence concerning the effectiveness of decision aids is from secondary care. Aim. To evaluate whether the addition of a computerized decision aid to written information improves decision making in women consulting their general practitioner with menorrhagia comparedwithwritten informationalone. Design of study. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. Nineteen general practices in the North of England. Method. One hundred forty-nine women presenting with menorrhagia were randomized to receive written information and access to a computerized decision aid or written information alone. Outcomes were assessed using postal questionnaires. These were scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory anxiety scale at 2 weeks and the Menorrhagia Specific Utility quality-of-life scale, knowledge about menorrhagia, and anxiety and process measures at 6 months. Results. Two weeks after the intervention, there was significantly less decisional conflict in the intervention group (adjusted difference = −16.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −21.5 to −11.7; P

Keywords: Key words: decision aids; shared decision making; patient participation; menorrhagia. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27:575—584) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306785 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:575-584

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306785

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().