15250-m-cuypers

197 JIPPA evaluation 10 Table 3. Patient DA evaluations DA 1 N= 255 DA 2 N=183 DA 3 N=235 p Practical implementation, agreed with statement, n (%) Received DA from doctor 189 (78%) 138 (76%) 151 (64%) .003 Doctor is most suitable to provide DA 200 (82%) 143 (81%) 168 (72%) .02 Received DA within a week from diagnosis 175 (69%) 159 (87%) 154 (66%) <.001 Satisfied with moment of receipt 232 (92%) 173 (95%) 196 (92%) DA was sufficiently explained 226 (89%) 161 (88%) 186 (87%) Satisfied with DA format 250 (99%) 176 (96%) 168 (79%) <.001 DA added much to other information 181 (83%) 141 (83%) 107 (56%) <.001 Implementation barriers confirmed, n (%) Forgot to use the DA 6 (2%) 4 (2%) 9 (4%) DA was too difficult 7 (3%) 3 (2%) 10 (5%) DA was steering towards a treatment 21 (9%) 14 (8%) 20 (10%) DA was unclear 5 (2%) 9 (5%) 12 (6%) DA was unpractical 10 (4%) 9 (5%) 25 (12%) .002 Was not confident in DA 20 (8%) 8 (4%) 24 (12%) .03 Expected no benefit 15 (6%) 15 (8%) 29 (14%) .01 Expected DA would be burdensome 12 (5%) 4 (2%) 11 (5%) Not motivated to use DA 11 (5%) 4 (2%) 13 (6%) Expected DA would increase uncertainty 17 (7%) 5 (3%) 13 (6%) DA was insufficiently adjusted to specific needs 30 (12%) 8 (4%) 28 (14%) .006 Implementation facilitators confirmed, n (%) DA was pleasant to use 223 (91%) 166 (91%) 166 (80%) .001 DA was well organized 234 (95%) 172 (94%) 175 (85%) <.001 DA enabled treatment comparisons 222 (90%) 164 (90%) 163 (79%) .001 DA gave insight in treatment (dis)advantages 226 (92%) 170 (93%) 168 (81%) <.001 Felt DA information was complete 204 (84%) 154 (84%) 154 (74%) .02 DA was important addition to other information 217 (90%) 166 (91%) 152 (73%) <.001 Pleasant to use DA as additional source of information 231 (94%) 160 (87%) 165 (80%) <.001 Confident in DA quality 231 (94%) 170 (93%) 170 (82%) <.001 Expected DA would reduce uncertainty about decision 167 (69%) 146 (80%) 124 (60%) <.001 Used the DA to determine treatment 176 (72%) 153 (84%) 123 (59%) <.001 DA made easier to talk with relatives 202 (83%) 160 (87%) 129 (62%) <.001 DA made easier to talk with care providers 196 (81%) 157 (86%) 123 (59%) <.001 Recommend DA to others 219 (100%) 171 (99%) 172 (90%) <.001 Percentages are calculated based on item response, not as a proportion of the group total presented in table header. P -values represent the outcomes of chi-square tests comparing all three DAs, significant differences caused by a single DA are indicated in bold.