Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Dawn Stacey,Dawn Stacey,Krystina B. Lewis,Michael J. Barry,Carol Bennett,Karen Eden,Margaret Holmes-Rovner,Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas,Anne Lyddiatt,Richard Thomson,Lyndal Trevena +10 more
TLDR
Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Abstract:
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.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.
Bryan R. Haugen,Erik K. Alexander,Keith C. Bible,Gerard M. Doherty,Susan J. Mandel,Yuri E. Nikiforov,Furio Pacini,Gregory W. Randolph,Anna M. Sawka,Martin Schlumberger,Kathryn G. Schuff,Steven I. Sherman,Julie Ann Sosa,David L. Steward,R. Michael Tuttle,Leonard Wartofsky +15 more
TL;DR: Evidence-based recommendations are developed to inform clinical decision-making in the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer and represent, in the authors' opinion, contemporary optimal care for patients with these disorders.
Journal ArticleDOI
Revised American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer
David S. Cooper,Gerard M. Doherty,Bryan R. Haugen,Richard T. Kloos,Stephanie L. Lee,Susan J. Mandel,Ernest L. Mazzaferri,Bryan McIver,Furio Pacini,Martin Schlumberger,Steven I. Sherman,David L. Steward,R. Michael Tuttle +12 more
TL;DR: Evidence-based recommendations in response to the appointment as an independent task force by the American Thyroid Association to assist in the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer represent, in the authors' opinion, contemporary optimal care for patients with these disorders.
Journal ArticleDOI
2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS
Paulus Kirchhof,Stefano Benussi,Dipak Kotecha,Anders Ahlsson,Dan Atar,Barbara Casadei,Manuel Castellá,Hans-Christoph Diener,Hein Heidbuchel,Jeroen M.L. Hendriks,Gerhard Hindricks,Antonis S. Manolis,Jonas Oldgren,Bogdan A. Popescu,Ulrich Schotten,Bart P. Van Putte,Panagiotis Vardas,Stefan Agewall,John Camm,Gonzalo Barón Esquivias,Werner Budts,Scipione Carerj,Filip Casselman,Antonio Coca,Raffaele De Caterina,Spiridon Deftereos,Dobromir Dobrev,José M. Ferro,Gerasimos Filippatos,Donna Fitzsimons,Bulent Gorenek,Maxine Guenoun,Stefan H. Hohnloser,Philippe Kolh,Gregory Y.H. Lip,Athanasios J. Manolis,John J.V. McMurray,Piotr Ponikowski,Raphael Rosenhek,Frank Ruschitzka,Irina Savelieva,Sanjay Sharma,Piotr Suwalski,Juan Tamargo,Clare J Taylor,Isabelle C. Van Gelder,Adriaan A. Voors,Stephan Windecker,José Luis Zamorano,Katja Zeppenfeld +49 more
TL;DR: The Task Force for the management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology has been endorsed by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO).
Journal ArticleDOI
2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines
Scott M. Grundy,Neil J. Stone,Alison L. Bailey,Craig A. Beam,Kim K. Birtcher,Roger S. Blumenthal,Lynne T. Braun,Sarah D. de Ferranti,Joseph Faiella-Tommasino,Daniel E. Forman,Ronald N. Goldberg,Paul A. Heidenreich,Mark A. Hlatky,Daniel W. Jones,Donald M. Lloyd-Jones,Nuria Lopez-Pajares,Chiadi E Ndumele,Carl E. Orringer,Carmen A. Peralta,Joseph J. Saseen,Sidney C. Smith,Laurence S. Sperling,Salim S. Virani,Joseph Yeboah +23 more
TL;DR: The next generation of scientists and decision-makers will be shaped by the experiences of those who have gone before them and will help shape the future of medicine and science.
Journal ArticleDOI
Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice
Glyn Elwyn,Glyn Elwyn,Dominick L. Frosch,Dominick L. Frosch,Richard Thomson,Natalie Joseph-Williams,Amy Lloyd,Paul Richard Kinnersley,Emma Cording,Dave Tomson,Carole Dodd,Stephen Rollnick,Adrian Edwards,Michael J. Barry +13 more
TL;DR: A model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk is proposed that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development.
References
More filters
Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
TL;DR: The STAI as mentioned in this paper is an indicator of two types of anxiety, the state and trait anxiety, and measure the severity of the overall anxiety level, which is appropriate for those who have at least a sixth grade reading level.
Journal ArticleDOI
Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials
Jonathan A C Sterne,Alex J. Sutton,John P. A. Ioannidis,Norma Terrin,David R. Jones,Joseph Lau,James R. Carpenter,Gerta Rücker,Roger M. Harbord,Christopher H. Schmid,Jennifer Tetzlaff,Jonathan J Deeks,Jaime Peters,Petra Macaskill,Guido Schwarzer,Sue Duval,Douglas G. Altman,David Moher,Julian P T Higgins +18 more
TL;DR: How to interpret funnel plot asymmetry, recommends appropriate tests, and explains the implications for choice of meta-analysis model are described.
Journal ArticleDOI
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)
TL;DR: This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues.
Journal ArticleDOI
A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.
Martin Roland,Richard W Morris +1 more
TL;DR: The development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure selfrated disability due to back pain is described, which is short, simple, sensitive, and reliable.
BookDOI
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Anita L. Stewart,John E. Ware +1 more
TL;DR: This book provides a set of ready-to-use generic measures that are applicable to all adults, including those well and chronically ill, as well as a methodological guide to collecting health data and constructing health measures.
Related Papers (5)
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
Glyn Elwyn,Annette M. O'Connor,Dawn Stacey,Robert J. Volk,Adrian Edwards,Angela Coulter,Richard Thomson,Alexandra Barratt,Michael J. Barry,Steven J. Bernstein,Phyllis Butow,Aileen Clarke,Vikki Entwistle,Deb Feldman-Stewart,Margaret Holmes-Rovner,Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas,Nora Moumjid,Albert G. Mulley,Cornelia M. Ruland,Karen Sepucha,Alan Sykes,Timothy J. Whelan +21 more