Cargando…
Right choice, right time: Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression
BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. DESIGN:...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513008/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27748004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12510 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. DESIGN: An uncontrolled cohort study with pre‐decision, immediately post‐decision and follow‐up measurements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=66) aged 12‐25 years with mild, mild‐moderate or moderate‐severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services. INTERVENTION: Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow‐up. RESULTS: After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3‐22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0‐100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow‐up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3‐4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine‐item scale (range 0‐27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%‐94%) of treatment courses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence‐based, client‐centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population. |
---|