The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making

Table 3 Comparison of young and old patients’ ratings of the three displays

Variable / Sample	Bar chart	Emoti-cons	Time-to-event	Total	Display	Age	A*D^b	Post-hoc tests^c
Variable / Sample	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	p-value (η^{2 a})	p- value (η^{2 a})	p- value (η^{2 a})	Post-hoc tests^c
Motivation for SDM^d
Young (n = 169)	3.40 (0.89)	3.47 (0.86)	3.59 (0.83)	3.49 (0.79)	<.001 (0.035)	< .001 (0.084)	.445 (0.002)	T > E, E > B, T > B
Old (n = 164)	3.88 (0.81)	3.92 (0.77)	4.00 (0.74)	3.94 (0.70)				T > E, E > B, T > B
Total (n = 333)	3.64 (0.89)	3.69 (0.85)	3.79 (0.81)
Accessibility^d
Young (n = 155)	3.35 (0.88)	3.69 (0.79)	3.81 (0.73)	3.62 (0.65)	< .001 (0.102)	< .001 (0.045)	.005 (0.018)	T > E, E > B, T > B
Old (n = 152)	3.79 (0.76)	3.88 (0.76)	4.02 (0.68)	3.90 (0.64)				T > E, T > B
Total (n = 307)	3.57 (0.85)	3.79 (0.78)	3.92 (0.71)

SDM shared decision-making, M mean, SD standard deviation, E emoticons, B bar chart, T time-to-event display
^aη² = effect size; 0.01 = small effect; 0.06 = medium effect; 0.14 = large effect
^bInteraction between age group and display. Significance means that the displays’ ratings relate differently to each other in each group
^cPost-hoc Scheffé pairwise comparisons of display types in case of significant main effect or interaction: > means significantly higher rating
^dRange 1–5; higher numbers reflect higher perceived ability to motivate patients to participate in SDM, or a higher perceived accessibility, respectively

ISSN: 2731-4553