Development and Preliminary Testing of a Patient Decision Aid to Assist Pharmaceutical Care in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a decision aid for patients with hypertension and/or dyslipidemia because a decision aid may assist in pharmaceutical care by providing relevant evidence-based information. DESIGN: Before and after use of a decision aid. SETTING: Hypertension clinic of a university hospital and a specialized coronary heart disease-prevention clinic. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 16 patients receiving pharmacologic treatment for hypertension and/or dyslipidemia. INTERVENTION: A face-to-face interview was conducted before using the decision aid. This was followed by a telephone interview after the patient used the decision aid to assess the acceptability of the decision aid to the patient, as well as the patient's knowledge, risk perception, and decisional conflict. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The decision aid consists of a booklet containing general, evidence-based information and a personal worksheet. The worksheet provides information on patient risk factors, personal estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, the benefits of treatment options, and values clarification exercise. It invites patients to specify an action plan and follow their own progress over time. Most patients (86-93%) rated the presentation of the information as excellent or very good, 80% judged the information about lifestyle changes and drug therapy to be balanced, 93% rated the amount of information "just right," and 100% found the decision aid useful. After using the decision aid, patients had higher knowledge scores for general risk factors (before, 91%; after, 100%, p=0.014), personal risk factors (73%, 92%, p=0.016), and treatment options (68%, 99%, p<0.001). More patients were able to estimate correctly their CVD risk category (50%, 93%, p=0.03) and their absolute 10-year CVD risk (0%, 93%, p<0.001), whereas the overall decisional conflict score decreased (p=0.007). CONCLUSION: The decision aid was acceptable to patients and improved their knowledge, risk perception, and decisional conflict. Therefore, the feasibility and impact of using the decision aid in community pharmacies and medical clinics should be assessed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".