Dataset Information

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To participate in shared decision making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.

Methods

Participants (Study 1: N = 117; Study 2: N = 217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of (a) narrative patient testimonials; (b) non-narrative decision strategies; and (c) an unrelated text (control group).

Results

Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.43; Study 2: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.57) and evaluated the decision-making process more positively (Study 2: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.11; Study 2: P = .003, d = 0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P < .001, ηP2 = 0.05).

Discussion

Decision aids that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people's feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one's options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

SUBMITTER: Korger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077165 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.

Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.