Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2003 Jun;53(491):446–453.

A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.

Alan A Montgomery 1, Tom Fahey 1, Tim J Peters 1
PMCID: PMC1314618  PMID: 12939889

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding the value of tools designed to aid decision making in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. AIM: To evaluate two interventions for assisting newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in the decision whether to start drug therapy for reducing blood pressure. DESIGN OF STUDY: Factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-one general practices in south-west England, UK. METHOD: Adults aged 32 to 80 years with newly diagnosed hypertension were randomised to receive either: (a) computerised utility assessment interview with individualized risk assessment and decision analysis; or (b) information video and leaflet about high blood pressure; or (c) both interventions; or (d) neither intervention. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge, state anxiety, intentions regarding starting treatment, and actual treatment decision. RESULTS: Of 217 patients randomised, 212 (98%) were analysed at the primary follow-up (mean age = 59 years, 49% female). Decision analysis patients had lower decisional conflict than those who did not receive this intervention (27.6 versus 38.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] for adjusted difference = -13.0 to -5.8, P < 0.001), greater knowledge about hypertension (73% versus 67%, adjusted 95% CI = 2% to 9%, P = 0.003) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (34.8 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -5.6 to 0.1, P = 0.055). Video/leaflet patients had lower decisional conflict than corresponding controls (30.3 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -7.4 to -0.6, P = 0.021), greater knowledge (75% versus 65%, adjusted 95% CI = 6% to 13%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (35.7 versus 36.1, adjusted 95% CI = -3.9 to 1.7, P = 0.46). There were no differences between either of the interventions and their respective controls in the proportion of patients prescribed antihypertensive medication (67%). CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates that, among patients facing a real treatment decision, interventions to inform patients about hypertension and to clarify patients' values concerning outcomes of treatment are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge, while not resulting in any increases in state anxiety.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (93.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson K. M., Odell P. M., Wilson P. W., Kannel W. B. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J. 1991 Jan;121(1 Pt 2):293–298. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(91)90861-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):112–121. doi: 10.1177/135581969700200209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Detsky A. S., Naglie G., Krahn M. D., Naimark D., Redelmeier D. A. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1--Getting started. Med Decis Making. 1997 Apr-Jun;17(2):123–125. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dowie Jack. The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems. Health Expect. 2002 Mar;5(1):16–27. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00160.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Edwards A., Elwyn G. The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical medicine. JAMA. 1999 Aug 25;282(8):779–780. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.8.779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Elwyn G., Edwards A., Eccles M., Rovner D. Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):571–574. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05709-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jackson R. Which hypertensive patients should be treated? Lancet. 1994 Feb 26;343(8896):496–497. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)91456-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Marteau T. M., Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992 Sep;31(Pt 3):301–306. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Montgomery A. A., Harding J., Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract. 2001 Jun;18(3):309–313. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.3.309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Naylor C. D. Clinical decisions: from art to science and back again. Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):523–524. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05743-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. O'Connor A. M., Tugwell P., Wells G. A., Elmslie T., Jolly E., Hollingworth G., McPherson R., Bunn H., Graham I., Drake E. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998 Mar;33(3):267–279. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00026-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. O'Connor A. M., Tugwell P., Wells G. A., Elmslie T., Jolly E., Hollingworth G., McPherson R., Drake E., Hopman W., Mackenzie T. Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone therapy. Med Decis Making. 1998 Jul-Sep;18(3):295–303. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. O'Connor A. M. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25–30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pell I., Dowie J., Clarke A., Kennedy A., Bhavnani V. Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Mar;11(1):32–39. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.1.32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Protheroe J., Fahey T., Montgomery A. A., Peters T. J. The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ. 2000 May 20;320(7246):1380–1384. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Robinson A., Thomson R. G., Decision Analysis in Routine Treatments Study (DARTS) team The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation. Qual Health Care. 2000 Dec;9(4):238–244. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.4.238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Robinson A., Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i34–i38. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100034... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Staessen J. A., Wang J. G., Thijs L. Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1305–1315. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06411-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sumner W., Nease R., Littenberg B. U-titer: a utility assessment tool. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991:701–705. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Swales J. D. Treating hypertension. J Hypertens. 1996 Jul;14(7):813–814. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199607000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Thomson R., Parkin D., Eccles M., Sudlow M., Robinson A. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 2000 Mar 18;355(9208):956–962. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90012-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES