Dataset Information

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes. DESIGN:We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks. RESULTS:17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference=19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference=-0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1. 3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference=0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100,-3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS:Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.

SUBMITTER: O'Connor AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC28223 | biostudies-literature | 1999 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.

O'Connor A M AM Rostom A A Fiset V V Tetroe J J Entwistle V V Llewellyn-Thomas H H Holmes-Rovner M M Barry M M Jones J J

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 19990901 7212

<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks.<h4>Results ...[more]

PMID: 10487995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men's prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).ResultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD -7.07%; 95% CI -9.44 to -4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).ConclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.

Project description:BackgroundOne potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities.MethodsWe searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05.ResultsWe reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs.DiscussionDAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations.

Project description:ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.

Project description:BackgroundDespite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions.ResultsOf the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]).InterpretationCanadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account.

Dataset Information

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.

Publications

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets