The effect of decision aids on the agreement between women's and physicians' decisional conflict about hormone replacement therapy

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.

Benefit, Barrier, and Self-Efficacy Messages in Advance Care Planning Education Materials

Advance care planning patient education materials are informational tools intended to empower patients to engage in preventative behaviors relevant to end-of-life decision-making. Fewer than 30% of patients engage in advance care planning (ACP) and little is known about specific messages relevant to health behavior change in ACP education materials. Using the Health Belief Model as a framework, this study used content analysis to examine both manifest and latent message content in ACP education materials (N = 58), focusing specifically on benefit, barrier, and self-efficacy messages. Results indicated that education materials lack unique, specific benefit, barrier, and self-efficacy messages, which may lower patients' motivation and self-efficacy with regard to ACP. Based on these findings, recommendations for designing ACP education materials in medical organizations are made.

Implementation Research on Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: Inventory of Intracluster Correlation Coefficients

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0-0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0-0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0-0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0-0.06), for which, respectively, "decisional conflict" (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39-0.57), "reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients" (0.5; 0.11-0.89), and "quality of the decision" (0.45; 0.14-0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0-0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Involving Citizen-Patients in the Development of Telehealth Services: Qualitative Study of Experts' and Citizen-Patients' Perspectives

Background

Decisions regarding telehealth services in Quebec (Canada) have been largely technocratic by nature for the last 15 years, and the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services is virtually nonexistent. In view of the societal challenges that telehealth raises, citizen-patient involvement could ensure more balance between evidence from traditional research methodologies and technical experts and the needs and expectations of populations in decisions about telehealth services.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the perception of various stakeholders (decision makers, telehealth program and policy managers, clinicians, researchers, evaluators, and citizen-patients) regarding the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services in Quebec. In particular, we explored its potential advantages, added value, obstacles, and challenges it raises for decision making.

Methods

We used a qualitative research approach based on semistructured individual interviews, with a total of 29 key actors. Respondents were identified by the contact network method. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A pragmatic content thematic analysis was performed. To increase the capacity for interpretation and analysis, we were guided by the principle of data triangulation.

Results

Citizen-patient involvement in decision making is perceived more as a theoretical idea than as a practical reality in health care organizations or in the health system. There is very little connection between citizen involvement structures or patient and user groups and telehealth leaders. For the respondents, citizen-patient involvement in telehealth could increase the accountability and transparency of decision making and make it more pragmatic within an innovation-driven health system. This involvement could also make citizen-patients ambassadors and promoters of telehealth and improve the quality and organization of health services while ensuring they are more socially relevant. Challenges and constraints that were reported include the ambiguity of the citizen-patient, who should be involved and how, claimant citizen-patient, the risk of professionalization of citizen-patient involvement, and the gap between decision time versus time to involve the citizen-patient.

Conclusions

This study provides a basis for future research on the potential of involving citizen-patients in telehealth. There is a great need for research on the issue of citizen-patient involvement as an organizational innovation (in terms of decision-making model). Research on the organizational predisposition and preparation for such a change becomes central. More efforts to synthesize and translate knowledge on public participation in decision making in the health sector, particularly in the field of technology development, are needed.

Specific Words and Experience Matter to Surrogates When Making End of Life Decisions

This grant funded preliminary study investigated the relationship between end-of-life terminologies and decisional conflict in surrogate decision makers using a convenience sample of 234 adults aged 50 and older. Participants were randomized into two groups; each received a survey packet that varied only in the use of the words "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)" and "Allow Natural Death (AND)." The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was administered and demographic data were collected. No difference was found in the total DCS scores based on the AND and DNR versions. However, AND respondents perceived their decision as a good decision and were eight times more likely to sign the document than DNR participants. Experienced decision-makers evolved as a discrete group. They had lower mean total DCS scores and lower mean subscores, indicating that prior experience is an important aspect of end-of-life decision-making. Experienced AND participants were more likely to perceive their decision as good and were more likely to be sure of their decision, indicating that they respond more favorably to the words Allow Natural Death. Respondents to the DNR version were likely to not sign or postpone signing. Those who frequently attended religious services were twice as likely as those who rarely attend religious services of implementing their decision; whether the decision is to sign or not to sign the AND or DNR. Finally, participants were more likely to withdraw from the study when the term DNR was used. Recommendations for future research are presented.

Use of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire in research and clinical practice: a comprehensive scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire was developed as a validated research tool to measure condition-specific QOL in early postmenopausal women. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review to explore the extent of MENQOL's use in research and clinical practice to assess its value in providing effective, adequate, and comparable participant assessment information.

METHODS

Thirteen biomedical and clinical databases were systematically searched with "menqol" as a search term to find articles using MENQOL or its validated derivative MENQOL-Intervention as investigative or clinical tools from 1996 to November 2014 inclusive. Review articles, conference abstracts, proceedings, dissertations, and incomplete trials were excluded. Additional articles were collected from references within key articles. Three independent reviewers extracted data reflecting study design, intervention, sample characteristics, MENQOL questionnaire version, modifications and language, recall period, and analysis detail. Data analyses included categorization and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The review included 220 eligible papers of various study designs, covering 39 countries worldwide and using MENQOL translated into more than 25 languages. A variety of modifications to the original questionnaire were identified, including omission or addition of items and alterations to the validated methodological analysis. No papers were found that described MENQOL's use in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found an extensive and steadily increasing use of MENQOL in clinical and epidemiological research over 18 years postpublication. Our results stress the importance of proper reporting and validation of translations and variations to ensure outcome comparison and transparency of MENQOL's use. The value of MENQOL in clinical practice remains unknown.

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.

An Exploratory Survey of Older Women's Post-Fall Decisions

This research examined factors influencing older women's post-fall decision making. We surveyed 130 independent older women from continuing care retirement communities and non-institutional homes. We categorized women's post-fall decisions as medical, corrective, and social decisions, and examined the associations between post-fall decision categories, decisional conflict, number of post-fall changes, self-rated health, frequency of falls, severity of falls, health literacy, awareness and openness to long-term care institutional options, and demographics. Older women experienced greater decisional conflict when making medical decisions versus social ( p = .012) and corrective ( p = .047) decisions. Significant predictors of post-fall decisional conflict were awareness of institutional care options ( p = .001) and health literacy ( p = .001). Future educational interventions should address knowledge deficits and provide resources to enhance collaborative efforts to lower women's post-fall decisional conflict and increase satisfaction in the decisions they make after a fall.

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

The frail elderly in Canada face a tough decision when they start to lose autonomy: whether to stay at home or move to another location. This study seeks to scale up and evaluate the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in interprofessional (IP) home care teams caring for elderly clients or their caregivers facing a decision about staying at home or moving elsewhere.

METHODS

A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving 8 Health and Social Service Centers (HSSCs) will be conducted with IP home care teams. HSSCs are the unit of randomisation. A decision guide will be passively distributed to all of the participating HSSCs at the beginning of the project. The participating HSSCs will then be randomised to 1 of 4 intervention start times, separated by 7-month intervals. The primary outcome is whether or not clients and caregivers assumed an active role in decision-making, assessed with a modified version of the Control Preferences Scale. The intervention, targeted at IP home care teams, consists of a 1.5 hour online tutorial and a 3.5 hour skills building workshop in IP SDM. Clients will be eligible for outcome assessment if they (1) are aged ≥65; (2) are receiving care from the IP home care team of the enrolled HSSCs; (3) have made a decision about whether to stay at home or move to another location during the recruitment periods; (4) are able to read, understand and write French or English; (5) can give informed consent. If clients are not able to provide informed consent, their primary caregiver will become the eligible participant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from the Multicenter Ethics Committee of CISSS-Laval. Results will be disseminated at conferences, on websites of team members and in peer-reviewed and professional journals intended for policymakers and managers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02592525, Pre-results.

Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) provides a process that facilitates shared decision making. Objective. To assess the impact of implementing the ODSF on the agreement and the difference between patients' and physicians' decisional conflict scores. Design. In total, 120 physicians and 903 patients enrolled in this before-and-after study. Implementation of the ODSF was composed of an interactive workshop, feedback, and a reminder at the point of care. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was completed by physicians and patients after a clinical encounter. Results. The intraclass correlation coefficient was–0.205 ± 0.096 (95% confidence interval [CI]= – 0.224 to –0.186) before implementing the ODSF and– 0.013 ± 0.114 (95% CI = – 0.036 to 0.009) after. At the patient level, the following factors were significantly associated with the difference between the patients' and physicians' DCS: unemployed (P = 0.023), implementing the ODSF (P = 0.008), high school degree (P = 0.04), male (P = 0.03), and unilateral role in decision making (P = 0.03). At the physician level, provincial committee (P = 0.001), national committee (P = 0.045), clinical site (P = 0.016), reluctance to share uncertainty (P = 0.023), and anxiety due to uncertainty (P = 0.017) were significantly associated with this outcome. Conclusion. After implementing the ODSF, there was less dissimilarity between patients' and physicians' DSC than expected by chance than before. Implementing the ODSF was also found to be associated with the difference between patients' and physicians' DSC. The physician level explained a significant amount of the variance in this outcome, thus emphasizing the importance of an intervention at this level.

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach.

Assessing Patient Participation in Health Policy Decision-Making in Cyprus

Although the importance of patient participation in the design and evaluation of health programs and services is well-documented, there is scarcity of research with regard to patient association (PA) participation in health policy decision-making processes. To this end, the present study aimed to validate further a previously developed instrument as well as to investigate the degree of PA participation in health policy decision-making in Cyprus. A convenient sample of 114 patients-members of patients associations took part in the study. Participants were recruited from an umbrella organization, the Pancyprian Federation of Patient Associations and Friends (PFPA). PA participation in health policy decision-making was assessed with the Health Democracy Index (HDI), an original 8-item tool. To explore its psychometric properties, Cronbach α was computed as regards to its internal consistency, while its convergent validity was tested against a self-rated question enquiring about the degree of PA participation in health policy decision-making. The findings revealed that the HDI has good internal consistency and convergent validity. Furthermore, PAs were found to participate more in consultations in health-related organizations and the Ministry of Health (MoH) as well as in reforms or crucial decisions in health policy. Lower levels were documented with regard to participation in hospital boards, ethics committees in clinical trials and health technology assessment (HTA) procedures. Overall, PA participation levels were found to be lower than the mid-point of the scale. Targeted interventions aiming to facilitate patients' involvement in health policy decision-making processes and to increase its impact are greatly needed in Cyprus.

Dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale: common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty were identified

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) for assessing shared decision making in clinical consultations. We applied dyadic criteria, which consider the patient and physician as an interactive dyad instead of as independent individuals, to identify common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients and their physicians, participating in a randomized clustered trial, completed separately an adapted version of the DCS with five subscales. We performed factor analysis on the full DCS and each subscale independently. We defined a measure as dyadic when measurement invariance across patients and physicians was supported.

RESULTS

We analyzed 332 paired responses (physicians with adults or with parents and children) at study entry and 339 at exit. Factor analysis showed that the full DCS is not a valid dyadic measure. However, independent analysis of each subscale showed measurement invariance for values clarity, support, and effective decision (comparative fit index range, 0.93-1; root mean square error of approximation range, 0-0.07; and P-value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Application of our dyadic validation criterion indicated that the full DCS cannot be considered a dyadic measure. However, three of its subscales, values clarity, support and effective decision, are valid dyadic measures.

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.

Computerised decision aids: a systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review existing empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of computerised decision aids (CDAs) in enabling high-quality decision-making in preference-sensitive health-related contexts.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases (1990-October 2010). Only randomised controlled trials with at least one decision quality or decision process variable outcome were included.

RESULTS

Of 1467 identified articles, 28 studies met all inclusion criteria, evaluating 26 unique CDAs. CDAs performed better than standard consultations/education regarding improved knowledge and lower decisional conflict, and were found not to increase anxiety. CDAs facilitated greater satisfaction with the decision-making process than standard education. The effects on risk perceptions, value congruence with the chosen option, preferred roles in decision-making and decisional self-efficacy need further evaluation. A paucity of CDAs adhered to decision theories.

CONCLUSIONS

CDAs showed similar effects as non-computerised DAs on various outcomes. Further research into the potentially superior effects of CDAs on feeling informed, values-clarity, and decisional conflict is required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The more remarkable effects on knowledge and risk perceptions were reported when unique features of interactive computerised media were used. The potential benefit of tailored information, values-clarification, and integration of CDAs into shared decision-making consultations remains unresolved.

Psychometric testing of the decisional conflict scale: genetic testing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is attributed mostly to mutations in the Breast Cancer 1 and Breast Cancer 2 genes (BRCA1/2). Mutation carriers of BRCA1/2 genes have significantly higher risk for developing breast cancer compared with the general population (55%-85% vs. 12%) and for developing ovarian cancer (20%-60% vs. 1.5%). The availability of genetic testing enables mutation carriers to make informed decisions about managing their cancer risk (e.g., risk-reducing surgery). However, uptake of testing for HBOC among high-risk individuals is low, indicating the need to better understand and measure the decisional conflict associated with this process.

OBJECTIVE

: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the modified Decisional Conflict Scale for use in decisions associated with genetic testing for HBOC.

METHODS

: This cross-sectional cohort study, recruited women who pursued genetic testing for HBOC in two genetic risk assessment clinics affiliated with a large comprehensive cancer center and one of their female relatives who did not pursue testing. The final sample consisted of 342 women who completed all 16 items of the Decisional Conflict Scale. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using tests of reliability and validity, including face, content, construct, contrast, convergent, divergent, and predictive validity.

RESULTS

: Factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation elicited a three-factor structure: (a) Lack of Knowledge About the Decision (α = .97), (b) Lack of Autonomy in Decision Making (α = .94), and (c) Lack of Confidence in Decision Making (α = .87). These factors explained 82% of the variance in decisional conflict about genetic testing. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .96.

DISCUSSION

: The instrument is an important tool for researchers and healthcare providers working with women at risk for HBOC who are deciding whether genetic testing is the right choice for them.

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.

Researching involvement in health care practices: interrupting or reproducing medicalization?

In this paper we reflect upon and problematize the ways in which 'patient involvement' is interpreted in a substantial proportion of the research literature on involvement and shared decision making. Drawing upon an analysis of this literature we raise concerns about the 'medicalization of involvement' embedded in, and reproduced by, some dominant research lenses, suggesting that this medicalization has powerful discursive and material effects. For example, we suggest that it tends to normalize and arguably trivialize intrinsically problematic and contentious concepts such as 'patient preferences' and, at the same time, to obscure the full range of possibilities for reciprocity in the exchanges between the medical world of the professional and the experiential and narrative world of the patient. We argue that richer conceptualizations of collaboration in clinical work are both possible and very much needed, and we indicate some examples of scholarly resources and perspectives that point towards richer and more defensible accounts of involvement. Overall we call for more attention to the idea of 'epistemic involvement' and much greater cross-fertilization between different epistemological paradigms in this area of research.

A plea for a more epidemiological and patient-oriented pharmacovigilance

The present work has the main objective of summarizing the history of pharmacovigilance and the associated methods and legislation and of showing how it could/should be reformulated in terms of a transition from a drug-centered to a patient/population-centered approach. The recurrent emergencies associated with new drug molecules raise many questions about the efficacy and efficiency of methodological tools as well as the role of regulatory systems. Drugs cannot be considered as an independent variable: the evaluation of all their effects must take into account the real contexts in which they are used and which affect not only their efficacy but also their tolerability and safety. Specific emphasis is given to recent and promising developments focused on the participation of patients and populations as key actors in producing knowledge that could technically integrate what has been produced so far and allow the evolution of surveillance from a role of controlling severe adverse reactions attributable to individual molecules to one of promoting a comprehensive assessment of the benefit/risk profile of drugs as they are utilized in society.

Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

From many empirical and theoretical points of view, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in work rehabilitation for pain due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is justified but typically the SDM model applies to a one on one encounter between a healthcare provider and a patient and not to an interdisciplinary team.

OBJECTIVES

To adapt and implement an SDM program adapted to the realities of work rehabilitation for pain associated with a MSD. More specific objectives are to adapt an SDM program applicable to existing rehabilitation programs, and to evaluate the extent of implementation of the SDM program in four rehabilitation centres.

METHOD

For objective one, we will use a mixed perspective combining a theory-based development program/intervention and a user-based perspective. The users are the occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical coordinators. The strategies for developing an SDM program will include consulting the scientific literature and group consensus with clinicians-experts. A sample of convenience of eight OTs, four clinical coordinators and four psychologists all of whom have been working full-time in MSD rehabilitation for more than two years will be recruited from four collaborating rehabilitation centres. For objective two, using the same criteria as for objective one, we will first train eight OTs in SDM. Second, using a descriptive design, the extent to which the SDM program has been implemented will be assessed through observations of the SDM process. The observation data will be triangulated with the dyadic working alliance questionnaire, and findings from a final individual interview with each OT. A total of five patients per trained OT will be recruited, for a total of 40 patients. Patients will be eligible if they have a work-related disability for more than 12 weeks due to musculoskeletal pain and plan to start their work rehabilitation programs.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first evaluation of the program and it is expected that improvements will be made prior to a broader-scale implementation. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of decision making, patients' quality of life, and reduce the duration of their work-related disability by improving the services offered during the rehabilitation process.

Too soon to give up: re-examining the value of advance directives

In the face of mounting criticism against advance directives, we describe how a novel, computer-based decision aid addresses some of these important concerns. This decision aid, Making Your Wishes Known: Planning Your Medical Future, translates an individual's values and goals into a meaningful advance directive that explicitly reflects their healthcare wishes and outlines a plan for how they wish to be treated. It does this by (1) educating users about advance care planning; (2) helping individuals identify, clarify, and prioritize factors that influence their decision-making about future medical conditions; (3) explaining common end-of-life medical conditions and life-sustaining treatment; (4) helping users articulate a coherent set of wishes with regard to advance care planning-in the form of an advance directive readily interpretable by physicians; and (5) helping individuals both choose a spokesperson, and prepare to engage family, friends, and health care providers in discussions about advance care planning.

Patient factors in the implementation of decision aids in general practice: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to help patients make treatment decisions. Research shows that they are effective in increasing patients' knowledge of treatment options without raising anxiety or conflict. However, they have not been routinely adopted for use in general practice in the UK and there are few reports addressing strategies to introduce them.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patients' views about a variety of DAs for different conditions (heart disease, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and breast cancer) in order to inform a strategy to introduce them into general practice.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

General practice patients over the age of 18 years being or having been treated for one of the conditions above.

METHODS

Qualitative study involving 12 focus groups with 77 patients evaluating decision aids relevant to their conditions. A semi-structured interview guide was used to generate discussions about the applicability of the DAs in routine general practice.

RESULTS

Patients welcomed DAs for their educational and informational content. Reactions to the DAs were influenced by patients' own personal desires for involvement. The main concerns were that the use of DAs would potentially shift the onus of decision making responsibility on to the patient and about the practical challenges to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians will need to make explicit to patients that DAs are an adjunct to routine care and not a replacement, and therefore do not represent a derogation of responsibility. DAs need to be used as an integral part of the communication and support process for patients who want them.

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.

Decisional Conflict in Patients and Their Physicians: A Dyadic Approach to Shared Decision Making

Background. Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, regret, or challenge to personal life values. It is influenced by inadequate knowledge, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made. Until recently, it has been studied at the individual level, which ignores the interpersonal system between patients and physicians. Objective. To explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on one own's outcome (actor effect) and on the other person's outcome (partner effect). Methods. After a clinical encounter, modifiable deficits and personal uncertainty were measured in physicians and patients using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to measure the parameters of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Results. A total of 112 dyads of physicians and patients were included in the analysis. For both patients and physicians, 2 actor effects, unclear values (P < 0:0001 ) and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made (P < 0:0001 ), were found to be positively correlated with personal uncertainty. One partner effect, feeling uninformed (P=0:03 ), was found to be negatively correlated with personal uncertainty. Conclusions. Personal uncertainty of patients and physicians is influenced not only by their respective deficits but also by the deficits of the other member of the dyad. Our results indicate that the more unclear the expression of their own values and the more they perceive that an ineffective choice had been made, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. They also indicate that the less uninformed they feel, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty.

Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Decision support technologies (DSTs, also known as decision aids) help patients and professionals take part in collaborative decision-making processes. Trials have shown favorable impacts on patient knowledge, satisfaction, decisional conflict and confidence. However, they have not become routinely embedded in health care settings. Few studies have approached this issue using a theoretical framework. We explained problems of implementing DSTs using the Normalization Process Model, a conceptual model that focuses attention on how complex interventions become routinely embedded in practice.

METHODS

The Normalization Process Model was used as the basis of conceptual analysis of the outcomes of previous primary research and reviews. Using a virtual working environment we applied the model and its main concepts to examine: the 'workability' of DSTs in professional-patient interactions; how DSTs affect knowledge relations between their users; how DSTs impact on users' skills and performance; and the impact of DSTs on the allocation of organizational resources.

RESULTS

A conceptual analysis using the Normalization Process Model provided insight on implementation problems for DSTs in routine settings. Current research focuses mainly on the interactional workability of these technologies, but factors related to divisions of labor and health care, and the organizational contexts in which DSTs are used, are poorly described and understood.

CONCLUSION

The model successfully provided a framework for helping to identify factors that promote and inhibit the implementation of DSTs in healthcare and gave us insights into factors influencing the introduction of new technologies into contexts where negotiations are characterized by asymmetries of power and knowledge. Future research and development on the deployment of DSTs needs to take a more holistic approach and give emphasis to the structural conditions and social norms in which these technologies are enacted.

Using decision aids in community-based primary care: a theory-driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge.

RESULTS

Participants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening.

CONCLUSION

Participants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.

Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the extent to which theory or theoretical frameworks informed the development and evaluation of decision support technologies (DSTs).

METHODS

The analysis was based on the decision technologies used in studies included in the Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids for people facing health screening or treatment decisions. The assumption was made that DSTs evaluated by randomized controlled trials, and therefore included in the updated Cochrane review have been the most rigorously developed.

RESULTS

Of the 50 DSTs evaluated only 17 (34%) were based on a theoretical framework. Amongst these, 11 decision-making theories were described but the extent to which theory informed the development, field-testing and evaluation of these interventions was highly variable between DSTs. The majority of the 17 DSTs that relied on a theory was not explicit about how theory had guided their design and evaluation. Many had superficial descriptions of the theory or theories involved. Furthermore, based on the analysis of those 17 DSTs, none had reported field-testing prior to evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The use of decision-making theory in DST development is rare and poorly described. The lack of theoretical underpinning to the design and development of DSTs most likely reflects the early development stage of the DST field.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings clearly indicate the need to give more attention to how the most important decision-making theories could be better used to guide the design of key decision support components and their modes of action.

Influenza vaccination and decisional conflict among regulated and unregulated direct nursing care providers in long-term-care homes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether direct nursing care providers have decisional conflict about receiving influenza vaccinations and characteristics associated with decisional conflict. The researchers used a self-administered questionnaire mailed to direct nursing care providers in two long-term-care organizations. Most direct nursing care providers in both organizations (80% and 93%, respectively) intended to get the influenza vaccine. Unregulated direct nursing care providers had more decisional conflict than regulated providers, especially related to feeling uninformed about the pros and cons of influenza vaccination. Unclear valuing of the pros and cons of influenza vaccination was related to the age of the direct care providers in both organizations. Decisional conflict and influenza vaccination practices may be determined, in part, by age and by the culture of a health care organization. A decision aid to improve knowledge and clarify values may improve decision quality and increase influenza vaccination rates.

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.

METHODS

Health care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

We report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.

Hormone therapy, dilemmas, medical decisions

The decision for women to go on hormone therapy (HT) remains controversial. An historical oscillation of beliefs exists related in part to expectations of the medicinal value of HT over longer-term use beyond the initial peri-menonpausal period. Studies thought to resolve issues surrounding the efficacy of HT were perhaps overstated as confusion still permeates the decision making with regard to HT. Overzealous advertising and exaggerated understanding of the results (negative or positive) undermine patient and physician decision making. There remains no magic bullet with regard to HT. What remains is still the possibility of HT longer-term efficacy on diverse end organ systems with pockets of clinical and scientific ambiguity while working to engender reasonable expectations.

Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review

Background

The measurement of processes and outcomes that reflect the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters is an important area of research to pursue. A systematic review was conducted to identify instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.

Methods

For every year available up until April 2007, PubMed, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts were searched for original studies in English or French. Reference lists from retrieved studies were also consulted. Studies were included if they reported a self-administered instrument evaluating physicians' perceptions of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters, contained sufficient description to permit critical appraisal and presented quantitative results based on administering the instrument. Two individuals independently assessed the eligibility of the instruments and abstracted information on their conceptual underpinnings, main evaluation domain, development, format, reliability, validity and responsiveness. They also assessed the quality of the studies that reported on the development of the instruments with a modified version of STARD.

Results

Out of 3431 records identified and screened for evaluation, 26 potentially relevant instruments were assessed; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Five instruments were published before 1995. Among those published after 1995, five offered a corresponding patient version. Overall, the main evaluation domains were: satisfaction with the clinical encounter (n = 2), mutual understanding between health professional and patient (n = 2), mental workload (n = 1), frustration with the clinical encounter (n = 1), nurse-physician collaboration (n = 1), perceptions of communication competence (n = 2), degree of comfort with a decision (n = 1) and information on medication (n = 1). For most instruments (n = 10), some reliability and validity criteria were reported in French or English. Overall, the mean number of items on the modified version of STARD was 12.4 (range: 2 to 18).

Conclusion

This systematic review provides a critical appraisal and repository of instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters. More research is needed to pursue the validation of the existing instruments and the development of patient versions. This will help researchers capture the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.

Filling a void: thyroid cancer surgery information on the internet

BACKGROUND

Thyroid cancer incidence is increasing, making it an important public health issue. Many patients use the Internet for health-related decisions. Our purposes were to measure the quality of thyroid cancer surgery information on the Internet, and to identify quality predictors.

METHODS

The 50 most popular thyroid cancer websites from Google, Yahoo, and MSN were identified. A novel 55-point instrument based on current clinical practice guidelines was designed and used by a Delphi panel of 5 "blinded" endocrine surgeons to assess website information. Each website was independently evaluated by two surgeons. Quality was related to website demographic data using the Student's t-test, chi-square, and ANOVA analyses.

RESULTS

Inter-rater reliability for quality scores was excellent (kappa = 0.81). Mean (% of overall quality) score was 21 (38%), and mean score for surgical content was low at 3.5 (29%). Only 50% of sites discussed indications for surgery; 8% length of surgery/anesthesia; 42% the role of lymphadenectomy; 44% recurrent laryngeal nerve injury/hoarseness and 42% hypoparathyroidism as potential complications; 16% recovery; and 20% recommendations for choosing a thyroid surgeon. Only 38% were updated within 2 years. On univariate analysis, no significant associations were found between surgical quality score and website country of origin, currency, sponsorship, authorship, oversight, or references.

CONCLUSIONS

Thyroid cancer surgery websites on the Internet are incomplete and outdated. No predictors of quality were identified. Significant improvement is needed in regulating information about thyroid cancer surgery on the Internet, and surgeons may contribute to this effort.

Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective. To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Data sources. Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Results. Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = —8.4, 95% CI = —11.9 to —4.8; unclear values WMD = —6.3, 95% CI = —10.0 to —2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. Conclusions. PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.

Decision-making at menopause: a randomized controlled trial of a computer-based hormone therapy decision-aid

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making at menopause remains a challenge for women and their health care providers as the paradigm for hormone therapy continues to evolve. The role of decision-support for this process remains to be defined.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of a computer-based hormone therapy (HT) decision-aid versus a control intervention consisting of a printed pamphlet among 177 post-menopausal women receiving care in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

RESULTS

Participants found the computer-based decision-aid easy to use and retained risk information incorporated from emerging scientific data. There was no difference between groups with respect to the primary outcomes of knowledge, satisfaction with decision, decisional conflict or HT use. A trend was reported towards decreased decisional conflict in the evidence in decision-making (p=0.07) and factors of uncertainty (p=0.06) domains among the subset of participants who were on HT at baseline and used the computer-based decision-aid.

CONCLUSION

The computer-based decision-aid was able to effectively incorporate emerging scientific information but was no more effective than a printed pamphlet control with regard to improving decision-process outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The incremental benefit of a complex versus simpler decision-aid for post-menopausal women remains to be established prior to widespread dissemination of interactive computer-based HT decision-aids.

Influence of decision aids on patient preferences for anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids have been shown to be useful in selected situations to assist patients in making treatment decisions. Important features such as the format of decision aids and their graphic presentation of data on benefits and harms of treatment options have not been well studied.

METHODS

In a randomized trial with a 3 x 2 factorial design, we investigated the effects of decision aid format (decision board, decision booklet with audiotape, or interactive computer program) and graphic presentation of data (pie graph or pictogram) on patients' comprehension and choices of 3 treatments for anticoagulation, identified initially as "treatment A" (warfarin), "treatment B" (acetylsalicylic acid) and "treatment C" (no treatment). Patients aged 65 years or older without known atrial fibrillation and not currently taking warfarin were included. The effect of blinding to the treatment name was tested in a before-after comparison. The primary outcome was change in comprehension score, as assessed by the Atrial Fibrillation Information Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were treatment choice, level of satisfaction with the decision aid, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Of 102 eligible patients, 98 completed the study. Comprehension scores (maximum score 10) increased by an absolute mean of 3.1 (p < 0.01) after exposure to the decision aid regardless of the format or graphic presentation. Overall, 96% of the participants felt that the decision aid helped them make their treatment choice. Unblinding of the treatment name resulted in 36% of the participants changing their initial choice (p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

The decision aid led to significant improvement in patients' knowledge regardless of the format or graphic representation of data. Revealing the name of the treatment options led to significant shifts in declared treatment preferences.

Outdated and incomplete: a review of thyroid cancer on the World Wide Web

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the most frequently searched thyroid cancer websites for completeness, accuracy, and consumer friendliness.

DESIGN

The 50 most popular thyroid cancer websites were evaluated using a novel instrument developed by a Delphi panel of endocrine experts and based on practice guidelines. Each website received independent scores for disease-specific information and a final quality score. Quality was related to website demographics using the Student t test, chi-square, and ANOVA analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Interrater reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.81). Most websites were not specific to thyroid cancer alone (72%), contained advertisements (72%), lacked references (66%), and were privately sponsored (50%). Only 38% had been updated within 2 years. "Government" and "Non-Profit" websites were the most consumer friendly. Mean quality score of medical content was 38%, with websites receiving the highest score in "Anatomy/Physiology" (55%) and lowest in "Surgery" (29%). Low quality score was attributed to information deficiency rather than inaccuracy. On univariate analysis, no significant associations were found between quality score and country of origin, currency, sponsorship, authorship, administration, advertisements, or references.

CONCLUSIONS

Thyroid cancer websites are out of date and incomplete, lacking important information sought by patients, particularly surgical information. An accurate, comprehensive, easily available, and patient-oriented thyroid cancer Internet resource is needed for patients.

The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC Annual Education Conference

Nondirectiveness has been a guiding principle for genetic counseling since the founding of the profession. However, its efficacy and appropriateness in this role have been frequently questioned. A workshop at the 2003 Annual Education Conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors provided audience participation in a discussion of these issues. Participants presented arguments for and against nondirectiveness as a central ethos. They described complex personal transitions in adapting what they had learned about nondirectiveness during training to the realities of the workplace. There was support for flexible approaches to genetic counseling, with varying adherence to nondirectiveness, based on client and family needs and values, clinical circumstances, and desired counseling outcomes. The discussion supports the use of clinical experience, outcomes research, and the experience of other professions to move beyond nondirectiveness and more accurately identify the theoretical bases that underlie genetic counseling in the variety of circumstances in which it is currently practiced.

Primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice

OBJECTIVE

To describe primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators for implementing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) in their practice.

METHODS

Thirteen focus groups with 118 primary health care professionals were performed. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines was used to content-analyse the following sources: reports from each workshop, field notes from the principal investigator and written materials collected from the participants.

RESULTS

Applicability of the ODSF to the practice population, process outcome expectation, asking patients about their preferred role in decision making, perception that the ODSF was modifiable, time issues, familiarity with the ODSF and its practicability were the most frequently identified both as barriers as well as facilitators. Forgetting about the ODSF, interpretation of evidence, challenge to autonomy and total lack of agreement with using the ODSF in general were identified only as barriers. Asking about values, health professional's outcome expectation, compatibility with the patient-centered approach or the evidence-based approach, ease of understanding and implementation, and ease of communicating the ODSF were identified only as facilitators.

CONCLUSION

These results provide insight on the type of interventions that could be developed in order to implement the ODSF in academic primary care practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions to implement the ODSF in primary care practice will need to address a broad range of factors at the levels of the health professionals, the patients and the health care system.

Assessment of needs of men for decision support on male sterilization

OBJECTIVE

To assess the needs of men for decision support on male sterilization.

METHODS

Forty-two men facing a decision about undergoing a vasectomy or not and 11 physicians who perform vasectomy were interviewed to assess the sources of difficulty in this decision-making process. On the day of their vasectomy, 209 men completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) and a knowledge test.

RESULTS

Sources of difficulty about the decision to have a vasectomy or not included: lack of information about risks and benefits, clarification of personal values concerning parenthood after the vasectomy, and undue pressure from partner. On the day of their vasectomy, only 1.9% (95% confidence interval 0.5-4.8%) of men had unresolved decisional conflict. However, most men scored poorly on their knowledge test mean score (58.2+/-13.5%).

CONCLUSION

Men facing the decision about having a vasectomy or not would benefit from a decision support intervention that would address conflicting information and clarification of values.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health professionals should provide decision support to men facing the decision about having a vasectomy or not. A decision aid on male sterilization would be useful in this respect.

Factors associated with the difference in score between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about hormone therapy: a multilevel regression analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors associated with the difference in score between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about hormone therapy (HT).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

family doctors were randomized to prepare women for counselling about HT using either a decision aid or a pamphlet.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

After each counselling session, decisional conflict was assessed in women and doctors using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument (PDPAI), respectively. The difference in score between the DCS and PDPAI was computed and entered as the dependent variable in a multilevel regression analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME RESULTS

A total of 40 doctors and 167 women were included in the analysis. The intra-doctor correlation coefficient was 0.25. Factors associated with women experiencing higher decisional conflict than their doctor were: age of doctor >45 years, women who were undecided about the best choice after the counselling session, women with a university degree and women who said that their doctor usually does not give them control over treatment decision. Factors associated with doctors experiencing more decisional conflict than women were: doctors who were undecided about the quality of the decision, length of visit <30 min and women who thought that the decision was shared with their doctor.

CONCLUSION

In order to reduce the disparities between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about HT, interventions aimed at raising awareness of doctors about shared decision-making should be encouraged.

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.