Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care

From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Commentary

OBJECTIVE — To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence. RESULTS — Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted. CONCLUSIONS — Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Diabetes Care 25:583–592, 2002

A systematic review of the literature

http://library.um.ac.id/free-contents/downloadpdf.php/buku/focus-groups-as-qualitative-research-by-morgan-david-l-11476.pdf

Focus groups as qualitative research / by Morgan, David L.

The costs of diabetes and its complications

Objective: To investigate the changes in the structure and service provision of general practice in areas with different socioeconomic characteristics. Design: Interview survey; postal questionnaire. Setting: 260 group and 80 singlehanded general practices in six family health services authorities in England. Main outcome measures: Changes in computer-isation, premises, staffing, incomes, and service provision since the introduction of the 1990 contract, including comparison with data from a study in 1987. Results: In 1993, 94% (245) of group practices were computerised compared with 38% in 1987, and 35% (90) of practices had used the cost rent scheme since 1987. Practice managers were employed in 88% (228) of group practices, and practice nurses in 96% (249) (61% and 60% respectively in 1987). Diabetes and asthma programmes were generally more common in the more affluent areas than elsewhere. A minority of practices (27% (9/33)) in the London inner city area achieved the higher target level for cervical smear testing, compared with 88% (230) overall. A similar trend was apparent for childhood immunisation. Perceived workload increased sharply between 1987 and 1993. Differences in the mean net incomes of general practitioners between areas were much lower than in 1987. Singlehanded practices generally had more problems than group practices in improving service provision. Conclusions: Practices in all areas have shown a strong response to the new incentives. The evidence suggests, however, that generally the urban and inner city practices still lag behind practices in rural and suburban areas in terms of practice structure and service provision.

Change in general practice and its effects on service provision in areas with different socioeconomic characteristics.

Recruitment and retention of general practitioners (GPs) has become an issue of major concern in recent years. However, much of the evidence is anecdotal and some commentators continue to question the scale of workforce problems. Hence, there is a need to establish a clear picture of those instabilities (i.e. imbalances between demand and supply) that do exist in the GP labour market in the UK. Based on a review of the published literature, we identify problems that stem from: (i) the changing social composition of the workforce and the fact that a large proportion of qualified GPs are significantly underutilized within traditional career structures; and (ii) the considerable differences in the ability of local areas to match labour demand and supply. We argue that one way to address these problems would be to encourage greater flexibility in a number of areas highlighted in the literature: (i) time commitment across the working day and week; (ii) long-term career paths; (iii) training and education; and (iv) remuneration and contract conditions. Overall, although the evidence suggests that the predicted 'crisis' has not yet occurred in the GP labour market as a whole, there is no room for lack of imagination in planning terms. Workforce planners continue to emphasize national changes to the medical school intake as the means to balance labour demand and supply between the specialities; however, better retention and deployment of existing GP labour would arguably produce more effective supply-side solutions. In this context, current policy and practice developments (e.g. Primary Care Groups and Primary Care Act Pilot Sites) offer a unique learning base upon which to move forward.

Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the UK: what are the problems and solutions?

The development of specialist clinical interests by general practitioners (GPs) is currently receiving considerable attention in the United Kingdom. Although GPs have long been able to pursue such interests, it is only in recent years that they have taken on within primary care what were previously secondary care tasks, provided such services for patients outside their own practices, and received payment for them. The expansion of such services has been highlighted as a target in the NHS plan for England. Managerial and professional guidance is becoming available that seeks to clarify the role and nature of specialisation within general practice, to learn from the experiences of individuals who have embarked on specialist practice, and suggests procedures for future developments. Drawing on a range of sources, this paper builds on that burgeoning knowledge by setting the development of GPs with special interests in a broader policy context, highlighting the implications for the way that healthcare services are organised and delivered, and discussing their actual and potential impact of professional roles and practice.

The role of UK general practitioners with special clinical interests: implications for policy and service delivery.

In the UK public concern about the safety of the combined measles, mumps and rubella [MMR] vaccine continues to impact on MMR coverage. Whilst the sharp decline in uptake has begun to level out, first and second dose uptake rates remain short of that required for population immunity. Furthermore, international research consistently shows that some parents lack confidence in making a decision about MMR vaccination for their children. Together, this work suggests that effective interventions are required to support parents to make informed decisions about MMR. This trial assessed the impact of a parent-centred, multi-component intervention (balanced information, group discussion, coaching exercise) on informed parental decision-making for MMR. This was a two arm, cluster randomised trial. One hundred and forty two UK parents of children eligible for MMR vaccination were recruited from six primary healthcare centres and six childcare organisations. The intervention arm received an MMR information leaflet and participated in the intervention (parent meeting). The control arm received the leaflet only. The primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were actual and intended MMR choice, knowledge, attitude, concern and necessity beliefs about MMR and anxiety. Decisional conflict decreased for both arms to a level where an 'effective' MMR decision could be made one-week (effect estimate = -0.54, p < 0.001) and three-months (effect estimate = -0.60, p < 0.001) post-intervention. There was no significant difference between arms (effect estimate = 0.07, p = 0.215). Heightened decisional conflict was evident for parents making the MMR decision for their first child (effect estimate = -0.25, p = 0.003), who were concerned (effect estimate = 0.07, p < 0.001), had less positive attitudes (effect estimate = -0.20, p < 0.001) yet stronger intentions (effect estimate = 0.09, p = 0.006). Significantly more parents in the intervention arm reported vaccinating their child (93% versus 73%, p = 0.04). Whilst both the leaflet and the parent meeting reduced parents' decisional conflict, the parent meeting appeared to enable parents to act upon their decision leading to vaccination uptake.

/pdf/randomised-cluster-trial-to-support-informed-parental-100bp3zbwm.pdf

Brenda Leese

Papers

The costs of diabetes and its complications

Change in general practice and its effects on service provision in areas with different socioeconomic characteristics.

Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the UK: what are the problems and solutions?

The role of UK general practitioners with special clinical interests: implications for policy and service delivery.

Randomised cluster trial to support informed parental decision-making for the MMR vaccine