Dataset Information

Clarifying values: an updated review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.

Methods

Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary.

Results

Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect.

Conclusions

Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Fagerlin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4044232 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clarifying values: an updated review.

Fagerlin Angela A Pignone Michael M Abhyankar Purva P Col Nananda N Feldman-Stewart Deb D Gavaruzzi Teresa T Kryworuchko Jennifer J Levin Carrie A CA Pieterse Arwen H AH Reyna Valerie V Stiggelbout Anne A Scherer Laura D LD Wills Celia C Witteman Holly O HO

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20131129

<h4>Background</h4>Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.<h4>Methods</h4>Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key def ...[more]

PMID: 24625261

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.PurposeTo describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.Study selectionWe included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.Data synthesisCompared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to -0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05).LimitationsSome meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Onychomycosis is a common fungal infection of the nail. OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to provide an update on the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of onychomycosis. METHODS:A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key term "onychomycosis". The search was conducted in May 2019. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews published within the past 20 years. The search was restricted to English literature. Patents were searched using the key term "onychomycosis" in www.freepatentsonline.com. RESULTS:Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nail unit. Approximately 90% of toenail and 75% of fingernail onychomycosis are caused by dermatophytes, notably Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum. Clinical manifestations include discoloration of the nail, subungual hyperkeratosis, onycholysis, and onychauxis. The diagnosis can be confirmed by direct microscopic examination with a potassium hydroxide wet-mount preparation, histopathologic examination of the trimmed affected nail plate with a periodic-acid-Schiff stain, fungal culture, or polymerase chain reaction assays. Laboratory confirmation of onychomycosis before beginning a treatment regimen should be considered. Currently, oral terbinafine is the treatment of choice, followed by oral itraconazole. In general, topical monotherapy can be considered for mild to moderate onychomycosis and is a therapeutic option when oral antifungal agents are contraindicated or cannot be tolerated. Recent patents related to the management of onychomycosis are also discussed. CONCLUSION:Oral antifungal therapies are effective, but significant adverse effects limit their use. Although topical antifungal therapies have minimal adverse events, they are less effective than oral antifungal therapies, due to poor nail penetration. Therefore, there is a need for exploring more effective and/or alternative treatment modalities for the treatment of onychomycosis which are safer and more effective.

Dataset Information

Clarifying values: an updated review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clarifying values: an updated review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets