Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stacey D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6478132 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC28223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).ResultsSeven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.ConclusionsThis review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.
| S-EPMC10909430 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6450794 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8575556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Australian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening. METHODS:~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening. FINDINGS:Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability. CONCLUSIONS:Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.
| S-EPMC6961909 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11345347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer patients often do not make informed decisions regarding clinical trial participation. This study evaluated whether a web-based decision aid (DA) could support trial decisions compared with our cancer center's website.MethodsAdults diagnosed with cancer in the past 6 months who had not previously participated in a cancer clinical trial were eligible. Participants were randomized to view the DA or our cancer center's website (enhanced usual care [UC]). Controlling for whether participants had heard of cancer clinical trials and educational attainment, multivariable linear regression examined group on knowledge, self-efficacy for finding trial information, decisional conflict (values clarity and uncertainty), intent to participate, decision readiness, and trial perceptions.ResultsTwo hundred patients (86%) consented between May 2014 and April 2015. One hundred were randomized to each group. Surveys were completed by 87 in the DA group and 90 in the UC group. DA group participants reported clearer values regarding trial participation than UC group participants reported (least squares [LS] mean = 15.8 vs. 32, p < .0001) and less uncertainty (LS mean = 24.3 vs. 36.4, p = .025). The DA group had higher objective knowledge than the UC group's (LS mean = 69.8 vs. 55.8, p < .0001). There were no differences between groups in intent to participate.ConclusionsImprovements on key decision outcomes including knowledge, self-efficacy, certainty about choice, and values clarity among participants who viewed the DA suggest web-based DAs can support informed decisions about trial participation among cancer patients facing this preference-sensitive choice. Although better informing patients before trial participation could improve retention, more work is needed to examine DA impact on enrollment and retention.Implications for practiceThis paper describes evidence regarding a decision tool to support patients' decisions about trial participation. By improving knowledge, helping patients clarify preferences for participation, and facilitating conversations about trials, decision aids could lead to decisions about participation that better match patients' preferences, promoting patient-centered care and the ethical conduct of clinical research.
| S-EPMC5153351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user's health literacy and the PtDA's characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.
| S-EPMC4042520 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6043730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.
| S-EPMC8655570 | biostudies-literature