TY - JOUR
T1 - Shared decision making in primary care
T2 - Process evaluation of the intervention in the OPTIMAL study, a cluster randomised trial
AU - Den Ouden, Henk
AU - Vos, Rimke C.
AU - Pieterse, Arwen H.
AU - Rutten, Guy E.H.M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The study was funded by a charitable foundation ( Nuts OHRA ) and no funding assistance was received from a commercial organization. The funding body has not any role in design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - AIMS: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).METHODS: Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT) testing the effect of a decision aid. Opinions and experienced role regarding SDM were assessed in 72 patients and 18 GPs with the SDM-Q-9 (range 0-45) and Control Preferences Scale (CPS, 0-5), and observed SDM with the OPTION5 (0-20). SDM at baseline was compared to 24 months' follow-up using paired t-tests.RESULTS: At baseline, perceived levels of SDM did not significantly differ between GPs and patients with T2DM (difference of 2.3, p = 0.24). At follow-up, mean patients' perceived level of SDM was 7.9 lower compared to baseline (p < 0.01), whereas GPs' opinions had not changed significantly. After both visits, mean CPS scores differed significantly between patients and GPs. OPTION5 scores ranged between 6 and 20.CONCLUSION: Patients and GPs perceived similar baseline levels of SDM. Two years later, patients perceived less SDM, while GPs did not change their opinion. SDM was appropriate immediately after training, but perhaps GPs fell back in old habits over time. We recommend repeated SDM training.
AB - AIMS: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).METHODS: Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT) testing the effect of a decision aid. Opinions and experienced role regarding SDM were assessed in 72 patients and 18 GPs with the SDM-Q-9 (range 0-45) and Control Preferences Scale (CPS, 0-5), and observed SDM with the OPTION5 (0-20). SDM at baseline was compared to 24 months' follow-up using paired t-tests.RESULTS: At baseline, perceived levels of SDM did not significantly differ between GPs and patients with T2DM (difference of 2.3, p = 0.24). At follow-up, mean patients' perceived level of SDM was 7.9 lower compared to baseline (p < 0.01), whereas GPs' opinions had not changed significantly. After both visits, mean CPS scores differed significantly between patients and GPs. OPTION5 scores ranged between 6 and 20.CONCLUSION: Patients and GPs perceived similar baseline levels of SDM. Two years later, patients perceived less SDM, while GPs did not change their opinion. SDM was appropriate immediately after training, but perhaps GPs fell back in old habits over time. We recommend repeated SDM training.
KW - Decision aid
KW - Primary care
KW - Shared decision making
KW - Type 2 diabetes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126942920&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pcd.2022.02.006
DO - 10.1016/j.pcd.2022.02.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 35314131
AN - SCOPUS:85126942920
SN - 1751-9918
VL - 16
SP - 375
EP - 380
JO - Primary Care Diabetes
JF - Primary Care Diabetes
IS - 3
ER -