Investigating active ingredients in a complex intervention: A nested study within the Patient and Decision Aids (PANDAs) randomised controlled trial for people with type 2 diabetes

被引：6

作者：

Brown I. ^{[1
]}

Bradley A. ^{[2
]}

Ng C.J. ^{[3
]}

Colwell B. ^{[2
]}

Mathers N. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester

[2] Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Sheffield

[3] Department of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

来源：

BMC Research Notes | / 7卷 / 1期

关键词：

Patient decision aid; Primary care; Process evaluation; Type; 2; diabetes;

D O I：

10.1186/1756-0500-7-347

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Randomised trials provide evidence that patient decision aids improve outcomes with respect to patient knowledge, involvement and satisfaction in decision making. It is less clear how these complex interventions are implemented within patient-clinician interactions and which components are active for improving decision processes. To investigate the experiences of using a diabetes treatment decision aid and to explore how components within a complex intervention influenced the decision making process. Methods. A pragmatic mixed methods study nested within the PANDAs cluster randomised trial of a patient decision aid. Themes inductively derived from interviews and observation of consultations with further triangulation with results of decision quality and involvement measurements and case analyses. Results: The decision aid intervention was employed flexibly within the consultation with both the patient and clinician active in marshalling elements. The decision aid improved processing and organization of information needed for decision making within the consultation interaction. It also improved decision quality by preparing the patient for active involvement within the clinical consultation. Conclusion: The intervention was acceptable, flexible and readily implemented in primary care consultations. The decision aid was effective in facilitating cognitive processing. The intervention also facilitated rehearsal in preparation for active roles in a shared decision process. Trial registration. Trials Register Number: ISRCTN14842077. Date registered: 24.06.2010. © 2014 Brown et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 47 条

[11]

Resources

[12]

O'Connor A., Jacobsen M., Workbook on Developing and Evaluating Patient Decision Aids, (2003)

[13]

O'Connor A.M., Ottawa Decision Support Framework to Support Decisional Conflict, (2006)

[14]

Stacy D., Legare F., Pouliot S., Kryworuchko J., Dunn S., Shared decision making models to inform an inter-professional perspective on decision making: A theory analysis, Pt Educ Couns, 80, pp. 164-172, (2010)

[15]

Mathers N., Ng C., Campbell M., Colwell C., Brown I., Bradley A., 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, BMJ Open, (2012)

[16]

Oakley A., Strange V., Bonnell C., Allen E., Stephenson J., Health services research - Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions, BMJ, 332, pp. 413-416, (2006)

[17]

Lewin S., Glenton C., Oxman A., Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised trials of complex healthcare interventions: Methodological study, BMJ, 339, (2009)

[18]

Creswell J., Klassen A., Clark V., Smith K., Best Practices in Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences, (2011)

[19]

Crowe S., Cresswell K., Robertson A., Huby G., Avery A., Sheikh A., The case study approach, BMC Med Res Methodol, 11, (2011)

[20]

O'Caithin A., Murphy E., Nicholl J., Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies, BMJ, 341, (2010)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →