Abstract
Introduction:
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-designed patient-facing decision aid compared to standard care alone for patients making a high-quality, informed decision regarding the decision to undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Methods:
A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was undertaken in a multi-surgeon public hospital arthroplasty clinic and private clinics of orthopaedic surgeons in Australia. A total of 216 patients were randomized before seeing an orthopaedic surgeon to either receive standard care or a printed decision aid in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was whether patients made a high-quality decision (defined as patients being knowledgeable of TKA outcomes and choosing a goal-concordant treatment) two weeks post-consultation. Secondary outcomes included how much the decision aid helped make a decision, satisfaction with the decision, and decisional conflict.
Results:
At the two-week follow-up, the primary outcome was provided by 173 (80.1%) participants. Participants receiving the aid were more likely to make a high-quality decision (OR [odds ratio]: 3.72, 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.77 to 7.83, P < 0.001) and had lower associated decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD [mean difference]: -5.7, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.5, P = 0.033). Participants receiving the decision aid were more likely to report that they felt informed (MD: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.1, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of surgery election or short-term satisfaction with the decision-making process.
Conclusions:
The decision aid markedly improved the likelihood of a patient making a high-quality decision and had less decisional conflict. Use of the aid in practice was feasible.
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-designed patient-facing decision aid compared to standard care alone for patients making a high-quality, informed decision regarding the decision to undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Methods:
A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was undertaken in a multi-surgeon public hospital arthroplasty clinic and private clinics of orthopaedic surgeons in Australia. A total of 216 patients were randomized before seeing an orthopaedic surgeon to either receive standard care or a printed decision aid in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was whether patients made a high-quality decision (defined as patients being knowledgeable of TKA outcomes and choosing a goal-concordant treatment) two weeks post-consultation. Secondary outcomes included how much the decision aid helped make a decision, satisfaction with the decision, and decisional conflict.
Results:
At the two-week follow-up, the primary outcome was provided by 173 (80.1%) participants. Participants receiving the aid were more likely to make a high-quality decision (OR [odds ratio]: 3.72, 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.77 to 7.83, P < 0.001) and had lower associated decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD [mean difference]: -5.7, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.5, P = 0.033). Participants receiving the decision aid were more likely to report that they felt informed (MD: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.1, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of surgery election or short-term satisfaction with the decision-making process.
Conclusions:
The decision aid markedly improved the likelihood of a patient making a high-quality decision and had less decisional conflict. Use of the aid in practice was feasible.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-93 |
| Number of pages | 93 |
| Journal | Journal of Arthroplasty |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 3 Jun 2025 |