The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Decision Aids for Menorrhagia on Treatment Choices, Health Outcomes, and Costs: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
CONTEXT: Decision aids can increase patient involvement in treatment decision making. However, questions remain regarding their effects and cost implications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of information, with and without a structured preference elicitation interview, on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up. Between October 1996 and February 1998, 894 women with uncomplicated menorrhagia were recruited from 6 hospitals in southwest England. Women were randomized to the control group, information alone group (information), or information plus interview group (interview). INTERVENTIONS: Women in both intervention groups were sent an information pack (a booklet and complementary videotape) 6 weeks before their specialist consultation. Immediately before their consultation, women in the interview group underwent structured interview, to clarify and elicit their preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported health status was the main outcome; secondary outcomes included treatments received and costs. Cost analyses adopted a UK health service (payer) perspective, and were based on patient-reported resource use data and are reported in 1999-2000 US dollars. RESULTS: The interventions had no consistent effect on health status. Hysterectomy rates were lower for women in the interview group (38%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.96) than in the control group (48%) and women who received the information alone (48%) (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82). The interview group had lower mean costs ($1566) than the control group ($2751) (mean difference, $1184; 95% CI, $684-$2110) and the information group $2026 (mean difference, $461; 95% CI, $236-$696). CONCLUSIONS: Neither intervention had an effect on health status. Providing women with information alone did not affect treatment choices; however, the addition of an interview to clarify values and elicit preferences had a significant effect on women's management and resulted in reduced costs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Incorporating Patients' Preferences into Medical Decisions
Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406303302611 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824
Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients
Coulter, A., & Ellins, J. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39246.581169.80 · Cited by 1,128
Self-citationSaini, V., Garcia-Armesto, S., Klemperer, D., Paris, V., Elshaug, A. G., Brownlee, S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Fisher, E. S. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30947-3 · Cited by 258
Knops, A. M., Legemate, D. A., Goossens, A., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Ubbink, D. T. (2013) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3182864fd6 · Cited by 231
Metadata
- Authors
- Kennedy, A. D. M., Sculpher, M. J., Coulter, A., Dwyer, N., Rees, M., Abrams, K. R., Horsley, S., Cowley, D., Kidson, C., Kirwin, C., Naish, C., & Stirrat, G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-12-04
- Volume
- 288
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2701
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2106647398
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 28.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Decision Aids for Menorrhagia on Treatment Choices, Health Outcomes, and Costs: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.288.21.2701
- The paper
- Kennedy, A. D. M., Sculpher, M. J., Coulter, A., Dwyer, N., Rees, M., Abrams, K. R., Horsley, S., Cowley, D., Kidson, C., Kirwin, C., Naish, C., & Stirrat, G. (2002). Effects of Decision Aids for Menorrhagia on Treatment Choices, Health Outcomes, and Costs: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.21.2701
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.