Presentations. This was presented as a poster presentation at the 2010 Society for Medical Decision Making in Toronto, Canada.
Feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid designed for people facing advanced or terminal illness: a pilot randomized trial
Article first published online: 28 OCT 2011
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 49–59, February 2014
How to Cite
Matlock, D. D., Keech, T. A. E., McKenzie, M. B., Bronsert, M. R., Nowels, C. T. and Kutner, J. S. (2014), Feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid designed for people facing advanced or terminal illness: a pilot randomized trial. Health Expectations, 17: 49–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00732.x
Grant or Financial Support. This research was conducted while Dan Matlock was a Hartford Geriatric Health Outcome Research Scholar. The project was funded by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making.
This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01235611.
- Issue published online: 12 JAN 2014
- Article first published online: 28 OCT 2011
- Accepted for publication 8 August 2011
- decision aid;
- palliative care;
- randomized trial
Background Patients nearing the end of their lives face an array of difficult decisions.
Objective This study was designed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid (DA) designed for patients facing advanced or terminal illness.
Design We conducted a pilot randomized clinical trial of Health Dialog’s Looking Ahead: choices for medical care when you’re seriously ill DA (booklet and DVD) applied to patients on a hospital-based palliative care (PC) service.
Setting University of Colorado Hospital – December 2009 and May 2010.
Participants All adult, English-speaking patients or their decision makers were potentially eligible. Patients were not approached if they were in isolation, did not speak English or if any provider felt that they were not appropriate because of issues such as family conflict or actively dying.
Intervention All participants received a standard PC consultation. Participants in the intervention arm also received a copy of the DA.
Measurements Primary outcomes included decision conflict and knowledge. Participants in the intervention arm also completed an acceptability questionnaire and qualitative exit interviews.
Results Of the 239 patients or decision makers, 51(21%) enrolled in the trial. The DA had no significant effect on decision conflict or knowledge. Exit interviews indicated it was acceptable and empowering, although they wished they had access to the DA earlier.
Conclusions While the DA was acceptable, feasibility was limited by late-life illness challenges. Future trials of this DA should be performed on patients earlier in their illness trajectory and should include additional outcome measures such as self-efficacy and confidence.