IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i4p360-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid for Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • K. Tiller

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia)

  • B. Meiser

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia)

  • C. Gaff

    (Genetic Health Services, Victoria, Australia; Familial Cancer Center, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia)

  • J. Kirk

    (Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia)

  • T. Dudding

    (Hunter Family Cancer Service, Hunter Genetics, and the University of Newcastle, Australia)

  • K.-A. Phillips

    (Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia)

  • M. Friedlander
  • K. Tucker

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Purpose . To carry out a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer to facilitate decision making regarding risk management options. Methods . This randomized trial, conducted through 6 familial cancer centers, compared the efficacy of tailored decision aid to that of a general educational pamphlet in preparing women for decision making. Participants . 131 women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer or of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Outcome measures . Decisional conflict, knowledge about ovarian cancer risk management options, and psychological adjustment were reassessed at 3 time points. Results . Compared to those who received the pamphlet (control), women who received the decision aid (intervention) were significantly more likely to report a high degree of acceptability of the educational material at both follow-up assessment time points. Findings indicate neither group experienced significant increases in psychological distress at either follow-up assessment time points relative to baseline. Two weeks postintervention, the intervention group demonstrated a significant decrease in decisional conflict compared to the control group (t = 2.4, P

Suggested Citation

  • K. Tiller & B. Meiser & C. Gaff & J. Kirk & T. Dudding & K.-A. Phillips & M. Friedlander & K. Tucker, 2006. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid for Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 360-372, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:360-372
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06290486
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06290486?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    3. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    4. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    5. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    8. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    9. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    14. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    15. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    16. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    17. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    19. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    20. Armstrong, David, 2023. "The social life of risk probabilities in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:360-372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.