CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesMechanical Circulatory Support Devices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of an Intervention Supporting Shared Decision Making for Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device: The DECIDE-LVAD Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Allen, Larry A., McIlvennan, Colleen K., Thompson, Jocelyn S., Dunlay, Shannon M., LaRue, Shane J., Lewis, Eldrin F., Patel, Chetan B., Blue, Laura, Fairclough, Diane L., Leister, Erin C., Glasgow, Russell E., Cleveland, Joseph C., Phillips, Clifford, Baldridge, Vicie, Walsh, Mary Norine, Matlock, Daniel D.·2018·JAMA Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8713PMC PMC5876922
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Shared decision making helps patients and clinicians elect therapies aligned with patients' values and preferences. This is particularly important for invasive therapies with considerable trade-offs. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of a shared decision support intervention for patients considering destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) placement. Design, Setting, and Participants: From 2015 to 2017, a randomized, stepped-wedge trial was conducted in 6 US LVAD implanting centers including 248 patients being considered for DT LVAD. After randomly varying time in usual care, sites were transitioned to an intervention consisting of clinician education and use of DT LVAD pamphlet and video patient decision aids. Follow up occurred at 1 and 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Decision quality as measured by knowledge and values-choice concordance. Results: In total, 135 patients were enrolled during control and 113 during intervention periods. At enrollment, 59 (23.8%) participants were in intensive care, 60 (24.1%) were older than 70 years, 39 (15.7%) were women, 45 (18.1%) were racial/ethnic minorities, and 62 (25.0%) were college graduates. Patient knowledge (mean test performance) during the decision-making period improved from 59.5% to 64.9% in the control group vs 59.1% to 70.0% in the intervention group (adjusted difference of difference, 5.5%; P = .03). Stated values at 1 month (scale 1 = "do everything I can to live longer…" to 10 = "live with whatever time I have left…") were a mean of 2.37 in control and 3.33 in intervention (P = .03). Patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month favored LVAD more in the control group (than in the intervention group (47 [59.5%] vs 95 [91.3%], P < .001). Correlation between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month was stronger in the intervention group than in the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45); however, there was no improved correlation between stated values and actual treatment received by 6 months for the intervention compared with the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.25). The adjusted rate of LVAD implantation by 6 months was higher for those in the control group (79.9%) than those in the intervention group (53.9%, P = .008), with significant variation by site. There were no differences in decision conflict, decision regret, or preferred control. Conclusions and Relevance: A shared decision-making intervention for DT LVAD modestly improved patient decision quality as measured by patient knowledge and concordance between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice, but did not improve concordance between stated values and actual treatment received. The rate of implantation of LVADs was substantially lower in the intervention compared with the control group. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02344576.

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/jamainternmed.2017.8713

Cites

50 of 50 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–179 of 179

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Allen, L. A., McIlvennan, C. K., Thompson, J. S., Dunlay, S. M., LaRue, S. J., Lewis, E. F., Patel, C. B., Blue, L., Fairclough, D. L., Leister, E. C., Glasgow, R. E., Cleveland, J. C., Phillips, C., Baldridge, V., Walsh, M. N., & Matlock, D. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System (US)
  • Patient stakeholder
  • Caregiver stakeholder
  • St Vincent Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Allen, Larry A.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2018-04-01
Volume
178
Issue
4
Pages
520
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8713
PMC
PMC5876922
OpenAlex
W2792883637
Cited by
179
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 10
FWCI
32.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Keywords
shared decision-making, patient decision aids, patient education, patient knowledge, treatment selection, end-of-life care, advanced heart failure, clinician education, patient-centered care, intervention effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Aged, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Heart Failure, Heart-Assist Devices, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Patient Preference

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