A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions
Abstract
PURPOSE
Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice.
METHODS
We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure.
RESULTS
People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 147 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.