Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 14;9(11):e033126. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033126.

Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment.

Author information

1
Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia danielle.muscat@sydney.edu.au.
2
School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
3
Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
4
Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
5
NPS Medicinewise, Strawberry Hills, New South Wales, Australia.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Choosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS:

We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:

This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results.

KEYWORDS:

decision making; health literacy; medical overuse; patient participation; question prompt list; shared decision making

PMID:
31727667
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033126
Free full text

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: RL is an employee of NPS MedicineWise which facilitates Choosing Wisely Australia. The University of Sydney owns intellectual property on the video and DM, MT, KM and RET are contributors to the intellectual property.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center