• coronary disease;
  • decision aids;
  • computer-assisted decision making;
  • randomized, controlled trials;
  • angioplasty;
  • coronary artery bypass;
  • medical informatics

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the Ischemic Heart Disease Shared Decision-Making Program (IHD SDP) an interactive videodisc designed to assist patients in the decision-making process involving treatment choices for ischemic heart disease, on patient decision-making.

DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: The Toronto Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty ambulatory patients with ischemic heart disease amenable to elective revascularization and ongoing medical therapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. This was measured using the 12-item Decision-Making Process Questionnaire that was developed and validated in a randomized trial of the benign prostatic hyperplasia SDP. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge (measured using 20 questions about knowledge deemed necessary for an informed treatment decision), treatment decision, patient-angiographer agreement on decision, and general health scores. Outcomes were measured at the time of treatment decision and/or at 6 months follow-up. Shared decision-making program scores were similar for the intervention and control group (71% and 70%, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI] for 1% difference, −3% to 7%). The intervention group had higher knowledge scores (75% vs 62%; 95% CI for 13% difference, 8% to 18%). The intervention group chose to pursue revascularization less often (58% vs 75% for the controls; 95% CI for 17% difference, 4% to 31%). At 6 months, 52% of the intervention group and 66% of the controls had undergone revascularization (95% CI for 14% difference, 0% to 28%). General health and angina scores were not different between the groups at 6 months. Exposure to the IHD SDP resulted in more patient-angiographer disagreement about treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in satisfaction with decision-making process scores between the IHD SDP and usual practice groups. The IHD SDP patients were more knowledgeable, underwent less revascularization (interventional therapies), and demonstrated increased patient decision-making autonomy without apparent impact on quality of life.