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

การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Measurement and interpretation of the ankle-brachial index : a scientific statement from the Ammerican Heart Association

Measurement and Interpretation of the Ankle-Brachial Index A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21457

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

Current models of healthcare quality recommend that patient management decisions be evidence-based and patient-centered. Evidence-based decisions require a thorough understanding of current information regarding the natural history of disease and the anticipated outcomes of different management options. Patient-centered decisions incorporate patient preferences, values, and unique personal circumstances into the decision making process and actively involve both patients along with health care providers as much as possible. Fundamentally, therefore, evidence-based, patient-centered decisions are multi-dimensional and typically involve multiple decision makers.Advances in the decision sciences have led to the development of a number of multiple criteria decision making methods. These multi-criteria methods are designed to help people make better choices when faced with complex decisions involving several dimensions. They are especially helpful when there is a need to combine "hard data" with subjective preferences, to make trade-offs between desired outcomes, and to involve multiple decision makers. Evidence-based, patient-centered clinical decision making has all of these characteristics. This close match suggests that clinical decision support systems based on multi-criteria decision making techniques have the potential to enable patients and providers to carry out the tasks required to implement evidence-based, patient-centered care effectively and efficiently in clinical settings.The goal of this paper is to give readers a general introduction to the range of multi-criteria methods available and show how they could be used to support clinical decision-making. Methods discussed include the balance sheet, the even swap method, ordinal ranking methods, direct weighting methods, multi-attribute decision analysis, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

/pdf/multi-criteria-clinical-decision-support-a-primer-on-the-use-1rspf249te.pdf

Multi-criteria clinical decision support: A primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

Purpose. To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs.Methods. Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention.Patient population. 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York.Outcome measures. The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out.Results. After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio6.47, P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings...

Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening.

Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a quantitative decision making technique created es pecially for complicated, multicriteria decision problems This report reviews the theoretical foundations of the AHP and shows how to use it in a step-by-step fashion

The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: a tutorial.

The degree of consensus and the accuracy of subjective prior probability estimates made by 104 clinicians were examined. The clinicians' estimates were compared with objective prior probabilities obtained from published sources and actual patient outcomes. Each cli nician made seven estimates based upon written case summaries abstracted from patient records. Consensus was measured by calculating estimate ranges and standard deviations. The clinicians' estimates varied widely: the smallest range was 80 (2%-82%); four of the seven probability ranges were greater than 90. The average standard deviation was 19.5. Using these prior probabilities and Bayes' theorem, widely varying posttest probabilities would result after many common diagnostic tests. Accuracy was measured using the Brier score, which ranges from 0 to 1; a score of 0 indicates perfect accuracy. The clinicians' Brier scores ranged from 0.05 to 0.57. The objectively determined probabilities achieved a Brier score of 0.11, better than that of 96% ...

James G. Dolan

Papers

Multi-criteria clinical decision support: A primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening.

Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: a tutorial.

An Eualuation of Clinicians' Subjective Prior Probability Estimates