Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care

Open access
Murray, Elizabeth, Davis, Hilary, Tai, Sharon See, Coulter, Angela, Gray, Alastair, Haines, Andy·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether a decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy influences decision making, health outcomes, and resource use. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: 33 general practices in the United Kingdom. Participants: 112 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy. Intervention: Patients' decision aid consisting of an interactive multimedia programme with booklet and printed summary. Outcome measures: Patients' and general practitioners' perceptions of who made the decision, decisional conflict scores, treatment choice and prostatectomy rate, American Urological Association symptom scale, costs, anxiety, utility, and general health status. Results: Both patients and general practitioners found the decision aid acceptable. A higher proportion of patients (32% v 4%; mean difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 14% to 41%) and their general practitioners (46% v 25%; 21%, 3% to 40%) perceived that treatment decisions had been made mainly or only by patients in the intervention group compared with the control group. Patients in the intervention group had significantly lower decisional conflict scores than those in the control group at three months (2.3 v 2.6; −0.3, −0.5 to −0.1, P<0.01) and this was maintained at nine months. No differences were found between the groups for anxiety, general health status, prostatic symptoms, utility, or costs (excluding costs associated with the video disc equipment). Conclusions: The decision aid reduced decisional conflict in men with benign prostatic hypertrophy, and the patients played a more active part in decision making. Such programmes could be delivered cheaply by the internet, and there are good arguments for coordinated investment in them, particularly for conditions in which patient utilities are important. What is already known on this topic: Patients want more information about their condition and treatment options, and many want to play an active part in decision making Decision aids improve patients' knowledge of their conditions and treatment options What this study adds: The decision aid was highly acceptable to both the patients and their general practitioners Decisional conflict was reduced in the intervention group Patients who viewed the programme played a more active part in the decision making process and were less anxious than control patients Such aids could be introduced throughout the NHS at relatively low cost by using the internet

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 · 10.1136/bmj.323.7311.493

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Murray, E., Davis, H., Tai, S. S., Coulter, A., Gray, A., & Haines, A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-09-01
Volume
323
Issue
7311
Pages
493
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2095675375
Cited by
188
References
2
FWCI
37.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.493
The paper
Murray, E., Davis, H., Tai, S. S., Coulter, A., Gray, A., & Haines, A. (2001). Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.493

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.