A computer-based information-tool for chronic pain patients. Computerized information to support the process of shared decision-making

An Evaluation of the Design of Multimedia Patient Education Materials in Musculoskeletal Health Care: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Educational multimedia is a cost-effective and straightforward way to administer large-scale information interventions to patient populations in musculoskeletal health care. While an abundance of health research informs the content of these interventions, less guidance exists about optimizing their design.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify randomized controlled trials of patient populations with musculoskeletal conditions that used multimedia-based patient educational materials (PEMs) and examine how design was reported and impacted patients' knowledge and rehabilitation outcomes. Design was evaluated using principles from the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML).

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to September 2023 for studies examining adult patients with musculoskeletal conditions receiving multimedia PEMs compared to any other interventions. The primary outcome was knowledge retention measured via test scores. Secondary outcomes were any patient-reported measures. Retrievability was noted, and PEMs were sourced through search, purchase, and author communication.

RESULTS

A total of 160 randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion: 13 (8.1%) included their educational materials and 31 (19.4%) required a web search, purchase, or direct requests for educational materials. Of these 44 (27.5%) studies, none fully optimized the design of their educational materials, particularly lacking in the CTML principles of coherence, redundancy, modality, and generative activities for the learner. Of the 160 studies, the remaining 116 (72.5%) contained interventions that could not be retrieved or appraised. Learning was evaluated in 5 (3.1%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal studies should use open science principles and provide their PEMs wherever possible. The link between providing multimedia PEMs and patient learning is largely unexamined, but engagement potential may be maximized when considering design principles such as the CTML.

A Review of the Design of Multimedia Patient Educational Materials in Low Back Pain Research

Low back pain guidelines recommend patient education as a component of management. Multimedia education materials to provide patient education are increasingly being used not only due to the convenience of digital services but also because this is an efficient way to deliver educational information to under-resourced or rural/remote regions without optimal healthcare services. To maximize the knowledge transfer of research findings and low back pain guidelines, scientifically backed information must evolve beyond journal prints, bland government websites, and the basic web design of budget-constrained advocacy groups. Materials must instead be engaging for the public and compete with the various sources of low back pain misinformation, which can appear attractive and eye-catching while being conveniently accessed. We discuss a data subset from a larger musculoskeletal healthcare review to highlight the educational materials used in low back pain randomized controlled trials found in the literature. While there is no standard way to appraise the effectiveness of such educational materials, potential options are discussed. Future research is needed to determine whether knowledge is being transferred and whether this is the avenue to improving patient outcomes.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Effects of a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for informed patients with primary liver cancer in decision-making in China: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

It is well known that decision aids can promote patients' participation in decision-making, increase patients' decision preparation and reduce decision conflict. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of a "Shared Decision Making Assistant" smartphone application on the decision-making of informed patients with Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) in China.

METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study , 180 PLC patients who knew their real diagnoses in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, from April to December 2020 were randomly assigned to a control group and an intervention group. Patients in the intervention group had an access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" application in decision-making, which included primary liver cancer treatment knowledge, decision aids path, continuing nursing care video clips, latest information browsing and interactive platforms. The study used decision conflict scores to evaluate the primary outcome, and the data of decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, decision satisfaction and regret, and knowledge of PLC treatment for secondary outcomes. Then, the data were entered into the SPSS 22.0 software and were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-square, independent t-test, paired t-test, and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Informed PLC patients in the intervention group ("SDM Assistant" group) had significantly lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group. ("SDM Assistant" group: 16.89 ± 8.80 vs. control group: 26.75 ± 9.79, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the decision preparation score (80.73 ± 8.16), decision self-efficacy score (87.75 ± 6.87), decision satisfaction score (25.68 ± 2.10) and knowledge of PLC treatment score (14.52 ± 1.91) of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group patients (P < 0.05) at the end of the study. However, the scores of "regret of decision making" between the two groups had no statistical significance after 3 months (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" enhanced the PLC patients' performance and improved their quality of decision making in the areas of decision conflict, decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, knowledge of PLC treatment and satisfaction. Therefore, we recommend promoting and updating the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" in clinical employment and future studies.

Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Mind and body therapy for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Mind-body interventions are based on the holistic principle that mind, body and behaviour are all interconnected. Mind-body interventions incorporate strategies that are thought to improve psychological and physical well-being, aim to allow patients to take an active role in their treatment, and promote people's ability to cope. Mind-body interventions are widely used by people with fibromyalgia to help manage their symptoms and improve well-being. Examples of mind-body therapies include psychological therapies, biofeedback, mindfulness, movement therapies and relaxation strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits and harms of mind-body therapies in comparison to standard care and attention placebo control groups for adults with fibromyalgia, post-intervention and at three and six month follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (EBSCO) and CINAHL (Ovid) were conducted up to 30 October 2013. Searches of reference lists were conducted and authors in the field were contacted to identify additional relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mind-body interventions for adults with fibromyalgia were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted the data and assessed trials for low, unclear or high risk of bias. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussion and consensus. Continuous outcomes were analysed using mean difference (MD) where the same outcome measure and scoring method was used and standardised mean difference (SMD) where different outcome measures were used. For binary data standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-four papers describing 61 trials were identified, with 4234 predominantly female participants. The nature of fibromyalgia varied from mild to severe across the study populations. Twenty-six studies were classified as having a low risk of bias for all domains assessed. The findings of mind-body therapies compared with usual care were prioritised.There is low quality evidence that in comparison to usual care controls psychological therapies have favourable effects on physical functioning (SMD -0.4, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, -7.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), pain (SMD -0.3, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2, -3.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale) and mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, -4.8% absolute change, 3 point shift on a 20 to 80 scale). There is very low quality evidence of more withdrawals in the psychological therapy group in comparison to usual care controls (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.69, 6% absolute risk difference). There is lack of evidence of a difference between the number of adverse events in the psychological therapy and control groups (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.50, 4% absolute risk difference).There was very low quality evidence that biofeedback in comparison to usual care controls had an effect on physical functioning (SMD -0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.3, -1.2% absolute change, 1 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), pain (SMD -2.6, 95% CI -91.3 to 86.1, -2.6% absolute change) and mood (SMD 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5, 1.9% absolute change, less than 1 point shift on a 0 to 90 scale) post-intervention. In view of the quality of evidence we cannot be certain that biofeedback has a little or no effect on these outcomes. There was very low quality evidence that biofeedback led to more withdrawals from the study (RR 4.08, 95% CI 1.43 to 11.62, 20% absolute risk difference). No adverse events were reported.There was no advantage observed for mindfulness in comparison to usual care for physical functioning (SMD -0.3, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1, -4.8% absolute change, 4 point shift on a scale 0 to 100), pain (SMD -0.1, CI -0.4 to 0.3, -1.3% absolute change, less than 1 point shift on a 0 to 10 scale), mood (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.0, -3.7% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 20 to 80 scale) or withdrawals (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.72, 2% absolute risk difference) between the two groups post-intervention. However, the quality of the evidence was very low for pain and moderate for mood and number of withdrawals. No studies reported any adverse events.Very low quality evidence revealed that movement therapies in comparison to usual care controls improved pain (MD -2.3, CI -4.2 to -0.4, -23% absolute change) and mood (MD -9.8, 95% CI -18.5 to -1.2, -16.4% absolute change) post-intervention. There was no advantage for physical functioning (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.2, -3.4% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 100 scale), participant withdrawals (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.38, 11% absolute difference) or adverse events (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 93.92, 4% absolute risk difference) between the two groups, however rare adverse events may include worsening of pain.Low quality evidence revealed that relaxation based therapies in comparison to usual care controls showed an advantage for physical functioning (MD -8.3, 95% CI -10.1 to -6.5, -10.4% absolute change) and pain (SMD -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.5, -3.5% absolute change, 2 point shift on a 0 to 78 scale) but not for mood (SMD -4.4, CI -14.5 to 5.6, -7.4% absolute change) post-intervention. There was no difference between the groups for number of withdrawals (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.59 to 33.07, 31% absolute risk difference) and no adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological interventions therapies may be effective in improving physical functioning, pain and low mood for adults with fibromyalgia in comparison to usual care controls but the quality of the evidence is low. Further research on the outcomes of therapies is needed to determine if positive effects identified post-intervention are sustained. The effectiveness of biofeedback, mindfulness, movement therapies and relaxation based therapies remains unclear as the quality of the evidence was very low or low. The small number of trials and inconsistency in the use of outcome measures across the trials restricted the analysis.

Exploring the experiences of client involvement in medication decisions using a shared decision making model: results of a qualitative study

This qualitative study explored a newly introduced model of shared decision making (CommonGround) and how psychiatric medications were experienced by clients, prescribers, case managers and peer support staff. Of the twelve client subjects, six were highly engaged in shared decision-making and six were not. Five notable differences were found between the two groups including the presence of a goal, use of personal medicine, and the behavior of case managers and prescribers. Implications for a shared decision making model in psychiatry are discussed.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

Psychological therapies (Internet-delivered) for the management of chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain (i.e. pain lasting longer than three months) is common. Psychological therapies (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy) can help people to cope with pain, depression and disability that can occur with such pain. Treatments currently are delivered via hospital out-patient consultation (face-to-face) or more recently through the Internet. This review looks at the evidence for psychological therapies delivered via the Internet for adults with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate whether Internet-delivered psychological therapies improve pain symptoms, reduce disability, and improve depression and anxiety for adults with chronic pain. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with treatment/treatment acceptability and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to November 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating psychological therapies delivered via the Internet to adults with a chronic pain condition. Potential RCTs were also identified from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. In addition, RCTs were also searched for in trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed RCTs were identified and read in full for inclusion. We included studies if they used the Internet to deliver the primary therapy, contained sufficient psychotherapeutic content, and promoted self-management of chronic pain. Studies were excluded if the number of participants in any arm of the trial was less than 20 at the point of extraction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Risk of bias assessments were conducted for all included studies. We categorised studies by condition (headache or non-headache conditions). Four primary outcomes; pain symptoms, disability, depression, and anxiety, and two secondary outcomes; satisfaction/acceptability and quality of life were extracted for each study immediately post-treatment and at follow-up (defined as 3 to 12 months post-treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies (N= 2012) were included in analyses. We assessed the risk of bias for included studies as low overall. We identified nine high 'risk of bias' assessments, 22 unclear, and 59 low 'risk of bias' assessments. Most judgements of a high risk of bias were due to inadequate reporting.Analyses revealed seven effects. Participants with headache conditions receiving psychological therapies delivered via the Internet had reduced pain (number needed to treat to benefit = 2.72, risk ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67 to 19.84, p < 0.01) and a moderate effect was found for disability post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‒0.65, 95% CI ‒0.91 to ‒0.39, p < 0.01). However, only two studies could be entered into each analysis; hence, findings should be interpreted with caution. There was no clear evidence that psychological therapies improved depression or anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.36, p > 0.05; SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.27, p > 0.05), respectively. In participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies improved pain post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a small effect size (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.15), disability post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a moderate effect size (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.20), and disability at follow-up (p < 0.05) with a small effect size (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.01). However, the follow-up analysis included only two studies and should be interpreted with caution. A small effect was found for depression and anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04, p < 0.05; SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.06, p < 0.01), respectively. No clear evidence of benefit was found for other follow-up analyses. Analyses of adverse effects were not possible.No data were presented on satisfaction/acceptability. Only one study could be included in an analysis of the effect of psychological therapies on quality of life in participants with headache conditions; hence, no analysis could be undertaken. Three studies presented quality of life data for participants with non-headache conditions; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.01, p > 0.05).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding the efficacy of psychological therapies delivered via the Internet in participants with headache conditions. Psychological therapies reduced pain and disability post-treatment; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found for depression and anxiety. For participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies delivered via the Internet reduced pain, disability, depression, and anxiety post-treatment. The positive effects on disability were maintained at follow-up. These effects are promising, but considerable uncertainty remains around the estimates of effect. These results come from a small number of trials, with mostly wait-list controls, no reports of adverse events, and non-clinical recruitment methods. Due to the novel method of delivery, the satisfaction and acceptability of these therapies should be explored in this population. These results are similar to those of reviews of traditional face-to-face therapies for chronic pain.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

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); andc) 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.

Quality of Web-based information on obsessive compulsive disorder

BACKGROUND

The Internet is increasingly used as a source of information for mental health issues. The burden of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) may lead persons with diagnosed or undiagnosed OCD, and their relatives, to search for good quality information on the Web. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of Web-based information on English-language sites dealing with OCD and to compare the quality of websites found through a general and a medically specialized search engine.

METHODS

Keywords related to OCD were entered into Google and OmniMedicalSearch. Websites were assessed on the basis of accountability, interactivity, readability, and content quality. The "Health on the Net" (HON) quality label and the Brief DISCERN scale score were used as possible content quality indicators. Of the 235 links identified, 53 websites were analyzed.

RESULTS

The content quality of the OCD websites examined was relatively good. The use of a specialized search engine did not offer an advantage in finding websites with better content quality. A score ≥16 on the Brief DISCERN scale is associated with better content quality.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the acceptability of the content quality of OCD websites. There is no advantage in searching for information with a specialized search engine rather than a general one.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The Internet offers a number of high quality OCD websites. It remains critical, however, to have a provider-patient talk about the information found on the Web.

Usability testing of a Smartphone for accessing a web-based e-diary for self-monitoring of pain and symptoms in sickle cell disease

We examined the usability of smartphones for accessing a web-based e-Diary for self-monitoring symptoms in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD). One group of participants (n = 10; mean age, 13.1 ± 2.4 y; 5 M; 5 F) responded to questions using precompleted paper-based measures. A second group (n = 21; mean age, 13.4 ± 2.4 y; 10 M; 11 F) responded based on pain and symptoms they experienced over the previous 12 hours. The e-Diary was completed with at least 80% accuracy when compared to paper-based measures. Symptoms experienced over the previous 12 hours included feeling tired (33.3%), headache (28.6%), coughing (23.8%), lack of energy/fatigue (19.0%), yellowing of the eyes (19.0%), pallor (19.0%), irritability (19.0%), stiffness in joints (19.0%), general weakness (14.3%), and pain (14.3%), rating on average as 2.0 ± 1.7 (on 0 to 10 scale). Overall, sleep was good (8.1 ± 1.4 on the 0 to 10 scale). In conclusion, children with SCD were able to use smartphones to access a web-based e-Diary for reporting pain and symptoms. Smartphones may improve self-reporting of symptoms and communication between patients and their health care providers, who may consequently be able to improve pain and symptom management in children and adolescents with SCD in a timely manner.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (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 to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Patient participation and shared decision making in Germany - history, agents and current transfer to practice

The main focus of the present paper is to describe 1) the healthcare system specific influences on patient participation in medical decision making and 2) the current state of research and implementation of shared decision making (SDM) after ten years of substantial advances in health policy and research in this field. WHAT ABOUT POLICY REGARDING SDM? The "Medical Patients Rights Act" is to standardise all the rights and responsibilities within the scope of medical treatment. This also comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on the partnership of clinicians and patients. WHAT ABOUT TOOLS - DECISION SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS? SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals have been developed and partly implemented. Several decision support interventions - primarily with support from health insurance funds - have been developed and evaluated. WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INTEREST AND IMPLEMENTATION? Against the background of the German health policy's endorsement of patient participation, the German government and other public institutions are currently funding different research programmes in which shared decision making is playing a substantial role. The development and implementation of decision support tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of trainings for healthcare professionals require stronger efforts. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE? With the support of health policy and with the utilisation of scientific evidence, the transfer of shared decision making into practice is considered to be meaningful in the German healthcare system. The translation into routine care will remain an important task for the future.

Computer analysis system of the physician-patient consultation process

PURPOSE

Measurements of the quality of physician-patient communication are important in assessing patient outcomes, but the quality of communication is difficult to quantify. The aim of this paper is to develop a computer analysis system for the physician-patient consultation process (CASC), which will use a quantitative method to quantify and analyze communication exchanges between physicians and patients during the consultation process.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

CASC is based on the concept of narrative-based medicine using a computer-mediated communication (CMC) technique from a cognitive dialog processing system. Effective and ineffective consultation samples from the works of Saito and Kleinman were tested with CASC in order to establish the validity of CASC for use in clinical practice. After validity was confirmed, three researchers compared their assessments of consultation processes in a physician's office with CASCs. Consultations of 56 migraine patients were recorded with permission, and for this study consultations of 29 patients that included more than 50 words were used.

FINDINGS

Transcribed data from the 29 consultations input into CASC resulted in two diagrams of concept structure and concept space to assess the quality of consultation. The concordance rate between the assessments by CASC and the researchers was 75 percent.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

In this study, a computer-based communication analysis system was established that efficiently quantifies the quality of the physician-patient consultation process. The system is promising as an effective tool for evaluating the quality of physician-patient communication in clinical and educational settings.

Technologically-assisted behaviour change: a systematic review of studies of novel technologies for the management of chronic illness

A systematic review was conducted to investigate the use of technology in achieving behaviour change in chronic illness. The areas reviewed were: (1) methods employed to adapt traditional therapy from a face-to-face medium to a computer-assisted platform; (2) targets of behaviour change; and (3) level of human (e.g. therapist) involvement. The initial literature search produced 2032 articles. A total of 45 articles reporting 33 separate interventions met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were reviewed in detail. The majority of interventions reported a theoretical basis, with many arising from a cognitive-behavioural framework. There was a wide range of therapy content. Therapist involvement was reported in 73% of the interventions. A common problem was high participant attrition, which may have been related to reduced levels of human interaction. Instigating successful behaviour change through technological interventions poses many difficulties. However, there are potential benefits of delivering therapy in this way. For people with long-term health conditions, technological self-management systems could provide a practical method of understanding and monitoring their condition, as well as therapeutic guidance to alter maladaptive behaviour.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in 'close call' decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.

A shared decision-making communication training program for physicians treating fibromyalgia patients: effects of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a condition of chronic widespread pain that is difficult to control and is associated with strains in physician-patient interaction. Shared decision making (SDM) can be a potential solution to improve interaction. We evaluated the effects of an SDM intervention, including an SDM communication training program for physicians, in a randomized controlled trial with FMS patients. The main objective was to assess whether SDM improves the quality of physician-patient interaction from patients' perspective.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to either an SDM group or an information-only group. The SDM group was treated by physicians trained in SDM communication and had access to a computer-based information package; the information-only group received only the information package and was treated by standard physicians. All patients were offered the same evidence-based treatment options for FMS. Patients were assessed with questionnaires on physician-patient interaction (main outcome criteria) and decisional processes. Physicians filled out a questionnaire on interaction difficulties. Assessment took place immediately after the initial consultation.

RESULTS

Data from 85 FMS patients (44 in the SDM group and 41 in the information-only group) were analyzed. The mean age was 49.9 years (S.D.=10.2), and 91.8% of patients were female. The quality of physician-patient interaction was significantly higher in the SDM group than in the information-only group (P<.001). We found no differences in secondary outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM with FMS patients might be a possible means to achieve a positive quality of physician-patient interaction. A specific SDM communication training program teaches physicians to perform SDM and reduces frustration in patients.

Patient and citizen participation in German health care--current state and future perspectives

Patient participation within the German healthcare system is described at three different levels: the macro level as active patient influence on the regulation of medical care, the meso level in terms of institutions enhancing patient information and counselling, and the micro level focusing on the actual treatment decision-making process in the medical encounter. The main focus of the present publication is on the health care system-specific influences on patient participation in medical decision-making and on the current state of research and implementation of shared decision-making in Germany. We describe institutions promoting patient involvement, their aims and initiatives as well as recent changes in German legislation. Against the background of German health politics' endorsement of patient participation the German Ministry of Health funded a research consortium with shared decision-making intervention projects in various disease areas. The present state of the intervention projects' results is outlined as well as subsequently funded transfer projects and future perspectives of research grants. Supported by health politics and the utilisation of scientific evidence shared decision-making's transfer into practice is considered to be relevant to the German health care system.

Long-term effects of a shared decision-making intervention on physician-patient interaction and outcome in fibromyalgia. A qualitative and quantitative 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) patients and their doctors frequently complain on interaction difficulties. We investigated the effects of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention on physician-patient interaction and health outcome.

METHODS

Sixty-seven FMS patients of an outpatient university setting that had been included in a randomized controlled trial were followed up. They were either treated in an SDM group or in an information group. Both groups saw a computer based information tool on FMS, but only the SDM group was treated by doctors which underwent a special SDM communication training. A comparison group of 44 FMS patients receiving treatment as usual was recruited in rheumatological practices. We assessed patients and their doctors using a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. Patients and doctors were followed-up after 3 months (T2) and after 1 year (T3).

RESULTS

The significantly best quality of physician-patient interaction was reported by patients and doctors of the SDM group, followed by the information group. Coping had more often improved in the SDM group than in the information group. However directly health related outcome variables had not improved in any of the groups at T3.

CONCLUSION

An SDM intervention can lead to an improved physician-patient relationship from the patients' and from the doctors' perspective.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It should be considered to include SDM in standard care for FMS patients.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in preference-sensitive decisions.

OBJECTIVES

1. Create a comprehensive inventory of patient decision aids focused on healthcare options. 2. Review randomized controlled trials (RCT) of decision aids, for people facing healthcare decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were identified through databases and contact with researchers active in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes. Information about the decision aids was compiled in an inventory; those that had been evaluated in a RCT were reviewed in detail.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardized forms. Results of RCTs were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 200 decision aids were identified. Of the 131 available decision aids, most are intended for use before counselling. Using the CREDIBLE criteria to evaluate the quality of the decision aids: a) most included potential harms and benefits, credentials of the developers, description of their development process, update policy, and were free of perceived conflict of interest; b) many included reference to relevant literature; c) few included a description of the level of uncertainty regarding the evidence; and d) few were evaluated. Thirty of these decision aids were evaluated in 34 RCTs and another trial evaluated a suite of eight decision aids. An additional 30 trials are yet to be published. Among the trials comparing decision aids to usual care, decision aids performed better in terms of: a) greater knowledge (WMD 19 out of 100, 95% CI: 13 to 24; b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1 to 1.9); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling informed (WMD -9.1 of 100, 95%CI: -12 to -6); d) increased proportion of people active in decision making (RR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post intervention (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7). When simpler were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in: a) knowledge (WMD 4 out of 100, 95% CI: 3 to 6); b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7); and c) greater agreement between values and choice. Decision aids appeared to do no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. Decision aids had a variable effect on which healthcare options were selected.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The availability of decision aids is expanding with many on the Internet; however few have been evaluated. Trials indicate that decision aids improve knowledge and realistic expectations; enhance active participation in decision making; lower decisional conflict; decrease the proportion of people remaining undecided, and improve agreement between values and choice. The effects on persistence with chosen therapies and cost-effectiveness require further evaluation. Finally, optimal strategies for dissemination need to be explored.