Implementation of shared decision making by physician training to optimise hypertension treatment. Study protocol of a cluster-RCT

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Karl-Georg Fischer⁴  Wilhelm Niebling²  Angela Buchholz¹  Andreas Loh²  Thorsten Dürk²  Achim Siegel²  Werner Vach³  Anika Buchholz⁵  Iris Tinsel² 

[1] Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, 20246, Germany;Department of Medicine, Division of General Practice, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Elsässerstr. 2 m, Freiburg, 79110, Germany;Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, Freiburg, 79104, Germany;Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, Freiburg, 79106, Germany;Clinical Trials Unit, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Elsässerstr. 2, Freiburg, 79110, Germany

关键词: Family medicine;    Primary care;    Adherence;    Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring;    Blood pressure control;    Educational training;    Shared decision making;    Cardiovascular risk;    Cardiovascular diseases;    Arterial hypertension;   

Others  :  1084419
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2261-12-73

 received in 2012-07-24, accepted in 2012-08-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases which make up the most frequent cause of death in industrialised nations. However about 60% of hypertensive patients in Germany treated with antihypertensives do not reach the recommended target blood pressure. The involvement of patients in medical decision making fulfils not only an ethical imperative but, furthermore, has the potential of higher treatment success. One concept to enhance the active role of patients is shared decision making. Until now there exists little information on the effects of shared decision making trainings for general practitioners on patient participation and on lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

Methods/Design

In a cluster-randomised controlled trial 1800 patients receiving antihypertensives will be screened with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in their general practitioners’ practices. Only patients who have not reached their blood pressure target (approximately 1200) will remain in the study (T1 – T3). General practitioners of the intervention group will take part in a shared decision making-training after baseline assessment (T0). General practitioners of the control group will treat their patients as usual. Primary endpoints are change of systolic blood pressure and change of patients’ perceived participation. Secondary endpoints are changes of diastolic blood pressure, knowledge, medical adherence and cardiovascular risk. Data analysis will be performed with mixed effects models.

Discussion

The hypothesis underlying this study is that shared decision making, realised by a shared decision making training for general practitioners, activates patients, facilitates patients’ empowerment and contributes to a better hypertension control. This study is the first one that tests this hypothesis with a (cluster-) randomised trial and a large sample size.

Trial registration

WHO International Clinical Trials: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00000125 webcite

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Tinsel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1 .

【 参考文献 】

• [1]US Department of Health and Human Services: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Complete Report 2004, NIH Publication No. 04-5230:1-88.
• [2]Robert-Koch-Institut: Beiträge zur Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Daten und Fakten: Ergebnisse der Studie 'Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell 2009. Berlin: Robert-Koch-Institut (author’s edition); 2009.
• [3]Wang YR, Alexander GC, Stafford RS: Outpatient hypertension treatment, treatment intensification, and control in Western Europe and the United States. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167(2):141-147.
• [4]Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Bundesministerium für Justiz: Patientenrechte in Deutschland – Leitfaden für Patientinnen/Patienten und Ärztinnen/Ärzte –Broschüre. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Bundesministerium für Justiz (author’s edition); 2007.
• [5]Coulter A, Magee H: The European patient of the future. Reprinted. ed. Maidenhead Open Univ Press; 2004.
• [6]Bieber C, Loh A, Ringel N, Eich W, Härter M: Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen - Manual zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung (Shared Decision-Making). Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Hospital (author’s edition); 2007.
• [7]Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hibbs R, Wilkinson C, Grol R: Shared decision making observed in clinical practice: visual displays of communication sequence and patterns. J Eval Clin Pract 2001, 7(2):211-221.
• [8]Emmons KM, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing in Health Care Settings. Opportunities and Limitations. Am J Prev Med 2001, 20(1):68-74.
• [9]Sim G, Wain T, Khong E: Influencing behaviour change in general practice Part 2 – motivational interviewing approaches. Aust Fam Physician 2009., 38(12)
• [10]Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S: Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci 2009, 4:75. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Gotler RS, Flocke SA, Goodwin MA, Zyzanski SJ, Murray TH, Stange KC: Facilitating participatory decision-making: what happens in real-world community practice? Med Care 2000, 38(12):1200-1209.
• [12]Naik AD, Kallen MA, Walder A, Street RL: Improving hypertension control in diabetes mellitus: the effects of collaborative and proactive health communication. Circulation 2008, 117(11):1361-1368.
• [13]Müller-Engelmann M, Krones T, Keller H, Donner-Banzhoff N: Decision making preferences in the medical encounter - a factorial survey design. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:260. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Härter M: The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 67(3):324-332.
• [15]Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R: Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ 2010, 341:c5146.
• [16]Krones T, Keller H, Sönnichsen A, Sadowski EM, Baum E, Wegscheider K, Rochon J, Donner-Banzhoff N: Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2008, 6(3):218-227.
• [17]Deinzer A, Veelken R, Kohnen R, Schmieder RE: Is a shared decision-making approach effective in improving hypertension management? J Clin Hypertens 2009, 11(5):266-270.
• [18]Bieber C, Nicolai J, Hartmann M, Blumenstiel K, Ringel N, Schneider A, Härter M, Eich W, Loh A: Training physicians in shared decision-making-who can be reached and what is achieved? Patient Educ Couns 2009, 77(1):48-54.
• [19]Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, Turcotte S: Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration 2010, 5:44.
• [20]O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mancia G, Mengden T, Myers M, Padfield P, Palatini P, Parati G, Pickering T, Redon J, Staessen J, Stergiou G, Verdecchia P: Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2005, 23(4):697-701.
• [21]Mahler C, Hermann K, Horne R, Ludt S, Haefeli WE, Szecsenyi J, Jank S: Assessing reported adherence to pharmacological treatment recommendations. Translation and evaluation of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS) in Germany. J Eval Clin Prac 2010, 16(3):574-579.
• [22]Keller S: Zur Validität des Transtheoretischen Modells – Eine Untersuchung zur Veränderung des Ernährungsverhaltens. Marburg; Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Psychology; 1998.
• [23]Simon D, Kriston L, Loh A, Spies C, Scheibler F, Wills C, Härter M: Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy-Preference-Index (API). Health Expect 2010, 13(3):234-243.
• [24]Anderson LA, Dedrick RF: Development of the Trust in Physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient-physician relationships. Psychol Rep 1990, 67(3 Pt 2):1091-1100.
• [25]Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M: The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 80(1):94-99.
• [26]Andrade SE, Kahler KH, Frech F, Chan KA: Methods for evaluation of medication adherence and persistence using automated databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006, 15(8):565-574. discussion 75–7
• [27]European Medicines Agency: Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of hypertension. London: EMA/238/1995/Rev. 3; 2010.
• [28]Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G, Grassi G, Heagerty AM, Kjeldsen SE, Laurent S, Narkiewicz K, Ruilope L, Rynkiewicz A, Schmieder RE, Boudier HA, Zanchetti A, Vahanian A, Camm J, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Tendera M, Widimsky P, et al.: Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007, 25(6):1105-1187.
• [29]Meisinger C, Heier M, Volzke H, Lowel H, Mitusch R, Hense HW, Ludemann J: Regional disparities of hypertension prevalence and management within Germany. J Hypertens 2006, 24(2):293-299.
• [30]The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Evaluation of Medicines for Human use. Committee for Propriety Medicinal Products: Points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. London: CPMP/EWP/2863/99; 2003.
• [31]Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA: Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 1989, 4(1):23-30.
• [32]Kerry SM, Bland JM: The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ Clinical research 1998, 316:1455.
• [33]Kerry SM, Bland JM: Sample size in cluster randomisation. BMJ 1998, 14(316(7130)):549.
• [34]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
• [35]Machin D, Campbell MJ: The design of studies for medical research. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.