Pilot trial of a computerized decision aid for breast cancer prevention
Journal
Breast J
Publication Date
2007 Mar-Apr
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
147-54
Summary:
- HIT Description: Decision support More info...
- Purpose of Study: To explore the effectiveness of a breast cancer prevention decision aid and the effectiveness of the aid on patient decision-making outcomes such as breast cancer prevention knowledge an dpatient satisfaction
- Years of study: Not Available
- Study Design: RCT
- Outcomes: Impact on patient satisfaction and impact on health care effectiveness and quality
- Settings: University of California, San Francisco Breast Care Center Prevention clinic
- Intervention: Comparison between patients using a computerized decision aid that incorporates the Gail and Claus breast cancer risk models to predict a women's risk of breast cancer and options for prevention during prevention consultation with a physician versus those using a standard format prevention consultation
- Evaluation Method: 30 of 34 consecutive eligible patients were enrolled and randomized to the control and intervention groups. Participants completed a pre-intervention as well as two post-intervention questionnaires that assessed the feasibility of the decision aid (i.e. duration of consultation, patient acceptance) and the clinical effectiveness of the decision aid (i.e. ease of decision-making, pateint knowledge, patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction).
- Description: Decision aid incorporated into an interactive, computer interface, designed to present breast cancer risk within the appropriate context to support decision making at the point of care.
- Quality of Care and Patient Safety Outcome: Intervention group pateints demonstrated significantly better knowledge after the visit but knowledge scores returned to baseline in both groups at follow-up. The majority of patients found the decision aid acceptable and useful in making a decision
- Changes in efficiency and productivity: Mean consultation duration was not significantly different between the two groups (24 minutes vs 21 minutes, p=0.42)