Key result
The ARRIBA-Herz decision aid significantly improved patient participation and satisfaction compared to control (mean difference -0.80) and reduced decisional regret at 6 months.
Why the study?
Does a simple decision aid for calculating absolute CVD risk and promoting shared decision making improve patient satisfaction and participation in primary care?
RCT (n=1,132)
Single-blind
Cluster randomized
Yes
Does a simple decision aid for calculating absolute CVD risk and promoting shared decision making improve patient satisfaction and participation in primary care?
Effect estimate: Mean difference -0.80 (95% CI -1.23 to -0.37)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.76% vs 7.56%
p-value: p=<.001
A primary care decision aid for absolute CVD risk communication significantly improved patient satisfaction, participation, and decisional regret without negatively impacting global CVD risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports integrating absolute CVD risk decision aids into primary care; extends evidence for shared decision-making tools.
Krones et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=1,132). ARRIBA-Herz decision aid vs. Alternative CME topic (control) was evaluated on Patient participation and satisfaction (Patient Participation Scale) (Mean difference -0.80, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.37, p=<.001). The ARRIBA-Herz decision aid significantly improved patient participation and satisfaction compared to control (mean difference -0.80) and reduced decisional regret at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: