Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 240

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

Kennedy, Andrew D. M., Sculpher, Mark J., Coulter, Angela, Dwyer, Nuala, Rees, Margaret, Abrams, Keith R., Horsley, Susan, Cowley, Deborah, Kidson, Christine, Kirwin, Catherine, Naish, Caroline, Stirrat, Gordon·2002·JAMA

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.288.21.2701

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 240

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
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.