Evaluation of a decision-making aid for parents regarding childhood immunizations

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.

The doctor knows or the evidence shows: An online survey experiment testing the effects of source trust, pro-vaccine evidence, and dual-processing in expert messages recommending child COVID-19 vaccination to parents

Increasing child vaccination rates is a critical step toward mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Both distrust in expert sources and concern about the safety and efficacy of vaccines may contribute to parent vaccine hesitancy. The present study is the first to test the effectiveness of building trust and providing evidence supporting child COVID-19 vaccines in recommendation messages for parents. Based on dual-processing theories, emphasis on source trustworthiness and pro-vaccine evidence may each be particularly effective when the other is not present. It was hypothesized that these two approaches would have main and interaction effects on perceived message effectiveness and pro-vaccine beliefs. A between-subjects 2 (trust-building appeal vs. no trust-building appeal) X 2 (pro-vaccine evidence vs. no pro-vaccine evidence) online survey experiment was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 with United States parents/guardians of children <18 years old (n = 401). As hypothesized, trust and pro-vaccine evidence each had significant simple main effects on both outcomes. Analysis of variance showed a significant negative interaction effect of trust and pro-vaccine evidence on perceived message effectiveness [F(3, 394) = 6.47; η2 = 0.02, p = 0.002; 95% CI (0.01, 0.11)], supporting the dual-processing hypothesis. The interaction effect on pro-vaccine beliefs was also negative but not significant [F(3, 394) = 2.69; η2 = 0.01; p = 0.102; 95% CI (0.00, 0.03)]. Either highlighting evidence supporting vaccines or building trust in expert sources can influence parent vaccine support. Messages which include strong evidence supporting recommended behaviors may influence recommendation acceptance even among those with lower trust in expert sources and establishing trust may reduce the need to describe available evidence.

Interventions for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Vaccines effectively protect against COVID-19, but vaccine hesitancy and refusal hinder vaccination rates. This systematic review aimed to (1) review and describe current interventions for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy/refusal and (2) assess whether these interventions are effective for increasing vaccine uptake. The protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO and comprehensive search included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. Only studies that evaluated the effectiveness of non-financial interventions to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were included, while those focusing intentions or financial incentive were excluded. Risk of bias for all included studies was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias tools. In total, six articles were included in the review (total participants n = 200,720). A narrative synthesis was performed due to the absence of common quantitative metrics. Except for one randomized controlled trial, all studies reported that interventions were effective, increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates. However, non-randomized studies were subject to confounding biases. Evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy interventions remains limited and further evidence is needed for the development of clear guidance on effective interventions to increase vaccine uptake.

Development and Appraisal of a Web-Based Decision Aid for HPV Vaccination for Young Adults and Parents of Children in Israel-A Quasi-Experimental Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of two web-based decision aids designed to help parents of children aged 10-17 years and young adults aged 18-26 years make informed decisions about the HPV vaccine.

METHODS

The decision aids were developed according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria and included information about the vaccine, probabilities of benefits and side effects, personal narratives, and values clarification. The study utilized a quasi-experimental design and included 120 Hebrew-speaking parents and 160 young adults. Participants completed baseline surveys and, two weeks after using the decision aid, completed a follow-up survey.

RESULTS

Both parents and young adults experienced a reduction in decisional conflict, an increase in self-efficacy, and greater confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The proportion of participating parents deciding to vaccinate their children against HPV increased from 46% to 75%, and the proportion of participating young adults leaning towards receiving the HPV vaccine increased from 64% to 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the importance of using decision aids to support informed decision making about vaccination and suggests that web-based decision aids may be a useful tool for supporting Israeli parents and young adults to make HPV vaccination decisions.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Vaccination information fathers receive during pregnancy and determinants of infant vaccination timeliness

The information fathers receive about infant vaccination may influence their decision to vaccinate. We describe fathers' sources of vaccination information and paternal determinants of timely infant vaccinations. Participants were from a child cohort study in New Zealand. The child cohort was established by enrolling pregnant women and their partners. During pregnancy, fathers (n = 4017) of the cohort children born 2009-2010 described information sources that encouraged or discouraged infant vaccination. The National Immunization Register provided infant vaccination data. Independent associations of the vaccination information received by fathers with the timeliness of their infant's vaccination were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Associations were described using adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. One-third of fathers (1430/4017 [36%]) recalled receiving vaccination information, 64% of which encouraged vaccination. Most infants (2900/4017 [72%]) received all their vaccinations on time, however only 58% of Māori infants were vaccinated on time. Paternal determinants of vaccination timeliness were the father receiving discouraging or conflicting information about vaccination, father's ethnicity, father's vaccination hesitancy, and whether the mother received vaccination information. To improve vaccination uptake and timeliness, a vaccination conversation with mothers, fathers and whānau could be included in routine antenatal care, informing and supporting decision-making, and addressing concerns. Vaccination education should address present and historic distrust of the health system. Framing vaccination within a Māori model of health and including fathers and whānau in decision-making will address vaccination inequities in New Zealand.

Addressing Myths and Vaccine Hesitancy: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on repeating vaccination misinformation or "myths" in debunking text is inconclusive; repeating myths may unintentionally increase agreement with myths or help discredit myths. In this study we aimed to compare the effect of repeating vaccination myths and other text-based debunking strategies on parents' agreement with myths and their intention to vaccinate their children.

METHODS

For this online experiment we recruited 788 parents of children aged 0 to 5 years; 454 (58%) completed the study. We compared 3 text-based debunking strategies (repeating myths, posing questions, or making factual statements) and a control. We measured changes in agreement with myths and intention to vaccinate immediately after the intervention and at least 1 week later. The primary analysis compared the change in agreement with vaccination myths from baseline, between groups, at each time point after the intervention.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that repeating myths increased agreement with myths compared with the other debunking strategies or the control. Posing questions significantly decreased agreement with myths immediately after the intervention compared with the control (difference: -0.30 points, 99.17% confidence interval: -0.58 to -0.02, P = .004, d = 0.39). There was no evidence of a difference between other debunking strategies or the control at either time point, or on intention to vaccinate.

CONCLUSIONS

Debunking strategies that repeat vaccination myths do not appear to be inferior to strategies that do not repeat myths.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of decision aids for vaccination decision-making

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of vaccination decision aids compared with usual care on vaccine uptake, vaccine attitudes, decisional conflict, intent to vaccinate and timeliness.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Randomised controlled trials were included if they evaluated the impact of decision aids as defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we conducted a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data were analysed using STATA.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of decision aids in the context of vaccination decision making. Meta-analysis of four studies showed that decision aids may have slightly increased vaccination uptake, but this was reduced to no effect once studies with higher risk of bias were excluded. Meta-analysis of three studies showed that decision aids moderately increased intention to vaccinate. Narrative synthesis of two studies suggested that decision aids reduced decisional conflict. One study reported that decision aids decreased perceived risk of vaccination. Content, format and delivery method of the decision aids varied across the studies. It was not clear from the information reported whether these variations affected the effectiveness of the decision aids.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can assist in vaccine decision making. Future studies of decision aids could provide greater detail of the decision aids themselves, which would enable comparison of the effectiveness of different elements and formats. Standardising decision aids would also allow for easier comparison between decision aids.

Portuguese parental beliefs and attitudes towards vaccination

Introduction

Portugal has one of the highest vaccine coverage rates among European countries, associated with excellent vaccine convenience and confidence levels. Considering both the high rate of pediatric vaccination in Portugal and the excellent indicators of vaccine convenience established, an analysis of confidence and complacency indicators could help understand this positive example. This study aimed to characterize parental beliefs according to the intention to vaccinate a next child and identify cognitive and demographic predictors of that intention in a Portuguese sample.

Methods

We measured perceptions of vaccines’ safety and efficacy, perceptions of the severity of vaccine-preventable diseases, beliefs related to conspiracy theories, attitudes towards immunization requirements, perceptions of social norms as predictors of the intention to vaccinate a subsequent child. We also inquired if parents had previously refused a recommended vaccine. The authors disseminated the questionnaire online to reach a diverse population of parents of 0–12 years old children. The final sample included 1,118 parents, 96.9% reported their intention to vaccinate the next child, and 3.6% had previously refused a vaccine. Two additional open-ended questions regarding motives to vaccinate or refuse a future baby's vaccination were answered by 886 parents.

Results

All the evaluated parental cognitive dimensions were significantly different between the group of parents who would vaccinate a next child and those who expressed the intention not to vaccinate. Beliefs about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and having fewer children were significant predictors of that intention.

Conclusion

The vast majority of parents reported attitudes and beliefs favorable to pediatric vaccination with high consistency in all cognitive dimensions assessed. Concerns regarding pediatric vaccines’ safety need to be sensitively and actively addressed by health providers to maintain excellent vaccination coverage rates.

Exploring complementary medicine practitioners' attitudes towards the use of an immunization decision aid, and its potential acceptability for use with clients to reduce vaccine related decisional conflict

While Australia boasts a high immunization rate, geographical pockets of low uptake still challenge herd immunity on a community level. For some parents, concerns about immunization lead to distrust of conventional sources of vaccine information and complementary medicine (CM) practitioners may be more readily trusted as a source of information about vaccines. Decision aids are common educational resources that are developed to support informed decision making. We interviewed CM practitioners to explore their attitudes to immunization decision aids in general and the acceptability of recommending this resource to parents with concerns or questions about immunization. While some practitioners felt that it might be biased towards immunizations, all said that they would recommend the resource to parents. CM practitioners are a trusted source of information, including immunization advice for some parents. CM practitioners were generally supportive of decision aids as a tool they could use in their practice to help parents with immunization questions, where a premium is often placed on patient choice.

What instruments should we use to assess paediatric decision-making interventions? A narrative review

There is an increasing number of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in paediatrics. However, there is little consensus as to the best instruments to assess the feasibility and impact of these interventions. This narrative review aims to answer: (1) what feasibility, knowledge and decision-making instruments have been used to assess paediatric SDM interventions and (2) what are the psychometric properties of used decision-making instruments, guided by the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument' criteria. We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature. We identified 23 studies that evaluated a paediatric intervention to facilitate SDM for a specific health decision. Eighteen studies assessed intervention feasibility, with a wide variability in assessment between studies. Twelve studies assessed objective knowledge, and four studies assessed subjective knowledge with all but one study aggregating correct responses. We identified nine decision-making instruments that had been assessed psychometrically, although few had been thoroughly evaluated. The Decisional Conflict Scale was the most commonly-used instrument and the only instrument evaluated in paediatrics. Our study revealed a lack of consistency in the instruments used to evaluate decision-making interventions in paediatrics, making it difficult to compare interventions. We provide several recommendations for researchers to improve the assessment of SDM interventions in paediatrics.

Provider perspectives on demand creation for maternal vaccines in Kenya

Background. Expansion of maternal immunization, which offers some of the most effective protection against morbidity and mortality in pregnant women and neonates, requires broad acceptance by healthcare providers and their patients. We aimed to describe issues surrounding acceptance and demand creation for maternal vaccines in Kenya from a provider perspective.

Methods. Nurses and clinical officers were recruited for semi-structured interviews covering resources for vaccine delivery, patient education, knowledge and attitudes surrounding maternal vaccines, and opportunities for demand creation for new vaccines. Interviews were conducted in English and Swahili, transcribed verbatim from audio recordings, and analyzed using codes developed from interview guide questions and emergent themes.

Results. Providers expressed favorable attitudes about currently available maternal immunizations and introduction of additional vaccines, viewing themselves as primarily responsible for vaccine promotion and patient education.  The importance of educational resources for both patients and providers to maintain high levels of maternal immunization coverage was a common theme. Most identified barriers to vaccine acceptance and delivery were cultural and systematic in nature. Suggestions for improvement included improved patient and provider education, including material resources, and community engagement through religious and cultural leaders.

Conclusions. The distribution of standardized, evidence-based print materials for patient education may reduce provider overwork and facilitate in-clinic efforts to inform women about maternal vaccines. Continuing education for providers should address communication surrounding current vaccines and those under consideration for introduction into routine schedules. Engagement of religious and community leaders, as well as male decision-makers in the household, will enhance future acceptance of maternal vaccines.

Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action

Vaccination is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, yet persistent public-health problems include inadequate, delayed, and unstable vaccination uptake. Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few interventions examined whether normative messages increase vaccination uptake. Many experimental studies have relied on hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that altruism and free riding (i.e., taking advantage of the protection provided by others) can affect intended behavior, but few randomized trials have tested strategies to change social processes to increase vaccination uptake. The third proposition is that interventions can facilitate vaccination directly by leveraging, but not trying to change, what people think and feel. These interventions are by far the most plentiful and effective in the literature. To increase vaccine uptake, these interventions build on existing favorable intentions by facilitating action (through reminders, prompts, and primes) and reducing barriers (through logistics and healthy defaults); these interventions also shape behavior (through incentives, sanctions, and requirements). Although identification of principles for changing thoughts and feelings to motivate vaccination is a work in progress, psychological principles can now inform the design of systems and policies to directly facilitate action.

Sharing knowledge about immunisation (SKAI): An exploration of parents' communication needs to inform development of a clinical communication support intervention

INTRODUCTION

The SKAI (Sharing Knowledge About Immunisation) project aims to develop effective communication tools to support primary health care providers' consultations with parents who may be hesitant about vaccinating their children.

AIM

This study explored parents' communication needs using a qualitative design.

METHODS

Parents of at least one child less than five years old were recruited from two major cities and a regional town known for high prevalence of vaccine objection. Focus groups of parents who held similar vaccination attitudes and intentions were convened to discuss experiences of vaccination consultations and explore their communication needs, including preferences. Draft written communication support tools were used to stimulate discussion and gauge acceptability of the tools.

RESULTS

Important differences in communication needs between group types emerged. The least hesitant parent groups reported feeling reassured upon reading resources designed to address commonly observed concerns about vaccination. As hesitancy of the group members increased, so did their accounts of the volume and detail of information they required. Trust appeared to be related to apparent or perceived transparency. More hesitant groups displayed increased sensitivity and resistance to persuasive language forms.

Informed decision making in the context of childhood immunization

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess informed decision making about childhood immunization by measuring knowledge, deliberation and value-consistency. Additionally, we investigated whether informed decision making is different for parents who accept and parents who decline vaccination.

METHODS

Parents of at least one child between 3 months and 3,5 years of age were randomly selected from a vaccination register and were asked to fill in an online questionnaire measuring informed decision making.

RESULTS

In total, 1615 parents completed the questionnaire (16.2%). 77.6% of the parents were classified as having sufficient knowledge, 34.3% of the decisions were deliberate, and 94% were value-consistent. This resulted in 21% of parents who were classified as making an informed decision. Vaccination decliners more often made a decision classified as informed than vaccination acceptors (34.3% vs. 19.7%). When decliners made a decision classified as uninformed, this was mainly due to insufficient knowledge, while uninformed decisions among acceptors were mainly due to a low level of deliberation.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Most parents made an uninformed decision about childhood vaccinations. Decision aids and counseling by child vaccine providers could improve the knowledge of decliners and motivate acceptors to deliberate about their decision, and by that promote informed decision making.

Visually enhanced education and immunization perceptions in low-income parents

OBJECTIVE

Despite immunizations being an effective health promotion intervention, about 28% of children are not up-to-date on the combined seven-vaccine series by 35 months of age in the United States. Identifying innovative techniques to increase immunization literacy is crucial to the health and well-being of children.

DESIGN AND SAMPLE

Based on the theory of multimedia learning, this study examined whether the use of visually enhanced education (VEE) positively impacted parental perception of immunization effectiveness, perceived knowledge of disease, comfort with immunization decision making, and satisfaction with the provider. Forty parents of infants 4-14 days old that could read English.

INTERVENTION

Parents completed a questionnaire with 12 items in four categories during the initial visit (4-14 days old) before VEE and at the second visit (17-37 days later) after the second VEE session had been completed.

RESULTS

A paired sample t test revealed a significant increase in two of the four categories (i.e., perceived knowledge of the disease [t(37) = 8.73, p = .000] and satisfaction with the provider [t(37) = 2.68, p = .011]. Cohen's effect size value suggested high practical significance in one of the four categories (i.e., perceived knowledge of disease d = 1.31, d = 1.42, d = 1.18, d = 1.05, d = 1.12). Cronbach's alpha for the 12 items was 0.852.

CONCLUSIONS

VEE may be an innovative technique for improving parental immunization health literacy and increasing parent-professional communication about immunizations.

Vaccine Education During Pregnancy and Timeliness of Infant Immunization

OBJECTIVES

Pregnant women routinely receive information in support of or opposing infant immunization. We aimed to describe immunization information sources of future mothers' and determine if receiving immunization information is associated with infant immunization timeliness.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a child cohort born 2009-2010 in New Zealand. Pregnant women (N = 6822) at a median gestation of 39 weeks described sources of information encouraging or discouraging infant immunization. Immunizations received by cohort infants were determined through linkage with the National Immunization Register (n = 6682 of 6853 [98%]). Independent associations of immunization information received with immunization timeliness were described by using adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Immunization information sources were described by 6182 of 6822 (91%) women. Of these, 2416 (39%) received information encouraging immunization, 846 (14%) received discouraging information, and 565 (9%) received both encouraging and discouraging information. Compared with infants of women who received no immunization information (71% immunized on-time), infants of women who received discouraging information only (57% immunized on time, OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.64) or encouraging and discouraging information (61% immunized on time, OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.63) were at decreased odds of receiving all immunizations on time. Receipt of encouraging information only was not associated with infant immunization timeliness (73% immunized on time, OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt, during pregnancy, of information against immunization was associated with delayed infant immunization regardless of receipt of information supporting immunization. In contrast, receipt of encouraging information is not associated with infant immunization timeliness.

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.

Negotiating Tensions Between Theory and Design in the Development of Mailings for People Recovering From Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

Taking all recommended secondary prevention cardiac medications and fully participating in a formal cardiac rehabilitation program significantly reduces mortality and morbidity in the year following a heart attack. However, many people who have had a heart attack stop taking some or all of their recommended medications prematurely and many do not complete a formal cardiac rehabilitation program.

Objective

The objective of our study was to develop a user-centered, theory-based, scalable intervention of printed educational materials to encourage and support people who have had a heart attack to use recommended secondary prevention cardiac treatments.

Methods

Prior to the design process, we conducted theory-based interviews and surveys with patients who had had a heart attack to identify key determinants of secondary prevention behaviors. Our interdisciplinary research team then partnered with a patient advisor and design firm to undertake an iterative, theory-informed, user-centered design process to operationalize techniques to address these determinants. User-centered design requires considering users’ needs, goals, strengths, limitations, context, and intuitive processes; designing prototypes adapted to users accordingly; observing how potential users respond to the prototype; and using those data to refine the design. To accomplish these tasks, we conducted user research to develop personas (archetypes of potential users), developed a preliminary prototype using behavior change theory to map behavior change techniques to identified determinants of medication adherence, and conducted 2 design cycles, testing materials via think-aloud and semistructured interviews with a total of 11 users (10 patients who had experienced a heart attack and 1 caregiver). We recruited participants at a single cardiac clinic using purposive sampling informed by our personas. We recorded sessions with users and extracted key themes from transcripts. We held interdisciplinary team discussions to interpret findings in the context of relevant theory-based evidence and iteratively adapted the intervention accordingly.

Results

Through our iterative development and testing, we identified 3 key tensions: (1) evidence from theory-based studies versus users’ feelings, (2) informative versus persuasive communication, and (3) logistical constraints for the intervention versus users’ desires or preferences. We addressed these by (1) identifying root causes for users’ feelings and addressing those to better incorporate theory- and evidence-based features, (2) accepting that our intervention was ethically justified in being persuasive, and (3) making changes to the intervention where possible, such as attempting to match imagery in the materials to patients’ self-images.

Conclusions

Theory-informed interventions must be operationalized in ways that fit with user needs. Tensions between users’ desires or preferences and health care system goals and constraints must be identified and addressed to the greatest extent possible. A cluster randomized controlled trial of the final intervention is currently underway.

To close the childhood immunization gap, we need a richer understanding of parents' decision-making

Vaccination is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful public health interventions globally and in most high-income countries childhood vaccination coverage rates are moderately high. Yet in many instances, immunisation rates remain below aspirational targets and have shown only modest progress toward those targets in recent years, despite concerted efforts to improve uptake. In part, coverage rates reflect individual parents' vaccination attitudes and decisions and, because vaccination decision-making is complex and context-specific, it remains challenging at individual and community levels to assist parents to make positive decisions. Consequently, in the search for opportunities to improve immunisation coverage, there has been a renewed research focus on parents' decision-making. This review provides an overview of the literature surrounding parents' vaccination decision-making, offering suggestions for where efforts to increase vaccination coverage should be targeted and identifying areas for further research.

Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: Results of a Consultation Study by the Canadian Immunization Research Network

"Vaccine hesitancy" is a concept now frequently used in vaccination discourse. The increased popularity of this concept in both academic and public health circles is challenging previously held perspectives that individual vaccination attitudes and behaviours are a simple dichotomy of accept or reject. A consultation study was designed to assess the opinions of experts and health professionals concerning the definition, scope, and causes of vaccine hesitancy in Canada. We sent online surveys to two panels (1- vaccination experts and 2- front-line vaccine providers). Two questionnaires were completed by each panel, with data from the first questionnaire informing the development of questions for the second. Our participants defined vaccine hesitancy as an attitude (doubts, concerns) as well as a behaviour (refusing some / many vaccines, delaying vaccination). Our findings also indicate that both vaccine experts and front-line vaccine providers have the perception that vaccine rates have been declining and consider vaccine hesitancy an important issue to address in Canada. Diffusion of negative information online and lack of knowledge about vaccines were identified as the key causes of vaccine hesitancy by the participants. A common understanding of vaccine hesitancy among researchers, public health experts, policymakers and health care providers will better guide interventions that can more effectively address vaccine hesitancy within Canada.

Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Diverse values clarification methods exist. It is important to understand which, if any, of their design features help people clarify values relevant to a health decision. Purpose. To explore the effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods on outcomes including decisional conflict, values congruence, and decisional regret. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described the evaluation of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted details about the evaluation, whether it was conducted in the context of actual or hypothetical decisions, and the results of the evaluation. We combined these data with data from a previous review about each values clarification method’s design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 20 evaluations of values clarification methods within 19 articles. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Few studies reported values congruence or postdecision outcomes. The most promising design feature identified was explicitly showing people the implications of their values, for example, by displaying the extent to which each of their decision options aligns with what matters to them. Limitations. Because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions. Few values clarification methods have been evaluated experimentally. More research is needed to determine effects of different design features of values clarification methods and to establish best practices in values clarification. When feasible, evaluations should assess values congruence and postdecision measures of longer-term outcomes.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Levels of measles in England and Wales are at their highest for 18 years, and strategies targeting the different groups of parents who do not vaccinate their children continue to be needed. Decision aids for decisions regarding childhood immunisation appear to be effective in achieving an increase in vaccine uptake but their cost effectiveness is unknown.

AIM

To assess the cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid to increase uptake of the MMR vaccine.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial using urban GP practices in the north of England.

METHOD

Fifty GP practices in the north of England were randomised to one of three trial arms: decision aid, leaflet, usual practice. A total of 220 first-time parents (child aged 3-12 months) were recruited. Parents self-reported their contacts with the NHS and other previous/expected resource utilisation; associated costs were calculated. Vaccine-uptake data were collected from GP practices. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken and provided the incremental cost per first-vaccine uptake. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data and findings were adjusted for baseline differences in parents' levels of decisional conflict regarding MMR vaccination.

RESULTS

Of the 220 first-time parents recruited to the study, 179 completed the baseline and post-intervention questionnaires. MMR uptake was highest for those receiving the decision aid (42 out of 42, 100%) versus usual practice (61 out of 62, 98%) and leaflet arm (69 out of 75, 92%), and was associated with lower cost (-£9.20 versus usual practice and -£7.17 versus leaflet).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid has a high chance of being cost effective, regardless of the value placed on obtaining additional vaccinations. It also appears to offer an efficient means of decision support for parents.

Shared Decision Making in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy of SDM interventions in pediatrics on patient-centered outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid PsycInfo from database inception to December 30, 2013, and performed an environmental scan.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included interventions designed to engage pediatric patients, parents, or both in a medical decision, regardless of study design or reported outcomes.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We reviewed all studies in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on 3 outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty-one citations describing 54 interventions met eligibility criteria. Fifteen studies reported outcomes such that they were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was high. Meta-analysis revealed SDM interventions significantly improved knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.17, P = .01) and reduced decisional conflict (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40, P = .003). Interventions showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased satisfaction (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.78, P = .08).

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous in nature, including their conceptions of SDM.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

A limited evidence base suggests that pediatric SDM interventions improve knowledge and decisional conflict, but their impact on other outcomes is unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

Risk Communication, Values Clarification, and Vaccination Decisions

Many health-related decisions require choosing between two options, each with risks and benefits. When presented with such tradeoffs, people often make choices that fail to align with scientific evidence or with their own values. This study tested whether risk communication and values clarification methods could help parents and guardians make evidence-based, values-congruent decisions about children's influenza vaccinations. In 2013-2014 we conducted an online 2×2 factorial experiment in which a diverse sample of U.S. parents and guardians (n = 407) were randomly assigned to view either standard information about influenza vaccines or risk communication using absolute and incremental risk formats. Participants were then either presented or not presented with an interactive values clarification interface with constrained sliders and dynamic visual feedback. Participants randomized to the risk communication condition combined with the values clarification interface were more likely to indicate intentions to vaccinate (β = 2.10, t(399) = 2.63, p < 0.01). The effect was particularly notable among participants who had previously demonstrated less interest in having their children vaccinated against influenza (β = -2.14, t(399) = -2.06, p < 0.05). When assessing vaccination status reported by participants who agreed to participate in a follow-up study six months later (n = 116), vaccination intentions significantly predicted vaccination status (OR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.13, 2.44), p < 0.05) and rates of informed choice (OR = 1.51, 95%CI (1.07, 2.13), p < 0.012), although there were no direct effects of experimental factors on vaccination rates. Qualitative analysis suggested that logistical barriers impeded immunization rates. Risk communication and values clarification methods may contribute to increased vaccination intentions, which may, in turn, predict vaccination status if logistical barriers are also addressed.

Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment: Do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias?

OBJECTIVES

Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention.

RESULTS

The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating.

CONCLUSIONS

The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Decision-making in the context of health behaviour change has been widely described, but there are few experimental studies testing hypothesised strategies. 'Non-directiveness' is often regarded as desirable because it supposedly allows exploration of the decision without influencing it. Previous studies on health screening (but not treatment) have shown that health decision outcomes can be systematically influenced by the way in which a 'non-directive' intervention is implemented. This can be accounted for by a modified subjective expected utility theory previously applied to both health screening and child vaccination decisions. What does this study add? The hypothetical decision about whether or not, in future, to take statins for elevated cholesterol levels was influenced by positive but not by negative focussing. Results were consistent with the theoretical framework. This study extends previous work on influences on the decision to undertake health screening and vaccination to treatment offered as secondary prevention. 'Non-directive' approaches to helping facilitate decisions can modify those decisions, and as such cannot be regarded as non-directive.

Parental reminder, recall and educational interventions to improve early childhood immunisation uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccination is one of the most effective ways of reducing childhood mortality. Despite global uptake of childhood vaccinations increasing, rates remain sub-optimal, meaning that vaccine-preventable diseases still pose a public health risk. A range of interventions to promote vaccine uptake have been developed, although this range has not specifically been reviewed in early childhood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parental interventions to improve early childhood (0-5 years) vaccine uptake. Twenty-eight controlled studies contributed to six separate meta-analyses evaluating aspects of parental reminders and education. All interventions were to some extent effective, although findings were generally heterogeneous and random effects models were estimated. Receiving both postal and telephone reminders was the most effective reminder-based intervention (RD=0.1132; 95% CI=0.033-0.193). Sub-group analyses suggested that educational interventions were more effective in low- and middle-income countries (RD=0.13; 95% CI=0.05-0.22) and when conducted through discussion (RD=0.12; 95% CI=0.02-0.21). Current evidence most supports the use of postal reminders as part of the standard management of childhood immunisations. Parents at high risk of non-compliance may benefit from recall strategies and/or discussion-based forums, however further research is needed to assess the appropriateness of these strategies.

Physician response to parental requests to spread out the recommended vaccine schedule

OBJECTIVES

To assess among US physicians (1) frequency of requests to spread out recommended vaccination schedule for children <2 years, (2) attitudes regarding such requests, and (3) strategies used and perceived effectiveness in response to such requests.

METHODS

An e-mail and mail survey of a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and family physicians from June 2012 through October 2012.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (534 of 815). In a typical month, 93% reported some parents of children <2 years requested to spread out vaccines; 21% reported ≥ 10% of parents made this request. Most respondents thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease (87%) and that it was more painful for children (84%), but if they agreed to requests, it would build trust with families (82%); further, they believed that if they did not agree, families might leave their practice (80%). Forty percent reported this issue had decreased their job satisfaction. Most agreed to spread out vaccines when requested, either often/always (37%) or sometimes (37%); 2% would often/always, 4% would sometimes, and 12% would rarely dismiss families from their practice if they wanted to spread out the primary series. Physicians reported using a variety of strategies in response to requests but did not think they were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtually all providers encounter requests to spread out vaccines in a typical month and, despite concerns, most are agreeing to do so. Providers are using many strategies in response but think few are effective. Evidence-based interventions to increase timely immunization are needed to guide primary care and public health practice.

What are the factors that contribute to parental vaccine-hesitancy and what can we do about it?

Parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines is increasing. Barriers to vaccination among this population have been described, yet less is known regarding motivating factors. Researchers are beginning to evaluate various approaches to address the concerns of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, but few studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on timely vaccine uptake. Several models for communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents have been reported for healthcare providers; however, the effectiveness and utility of these strategies has not been quantified. This article reviews the known barriers to vaccination reported by vaccine-hesitant parents and the current evidence on strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy.

A socially situated approach to inform ways to improve health and wellbeing

Mainstream health psychology supports neoliberal notions of health promotion in which self-management is central. The emphasis is on models that explain behaviour as individually driven and cognitively motivated, with health beliefs framed as the favoured mechanisms to target in order to bring about change to improve health. Utilising understandings exemplified in critical health psychology, we take a more socially situated approach, focusing on practicing health, the rhetoric of modernisation in UK health care and moves toward democratisation. While recognising that within these new ways of working there are opportunities for empowerment and user-led health care, there are other implications. How these changes link to simplistic cognitive behavioural ideologies of health promotion and rational decision-making is explored. Utilising two different empirical studies, this article highlights how self-management and expected compliance with governmental authority in relation to health practices position not only communities that experience multiple disadvantage but also more seemingly privileged social actors. The article presents a challenge to self-management and informed choice, in which the importance of navigational networks is evident. Because health care can become remote and inaccessible to certain sections of the community, yet pervasive and deterministic for others, we need multiple levels of analysis and different forms of action.

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.

Oral antibiotics at discharge for children with acute osteomyelitis: a rapid cycle improvement project

BACKGROUND

Substantial evidence demonstrates comparable cure rates for oral versus intravenous therapy for routine osteomyelitis. Evidence adoption is often slow and in our centre virtually all patients with osteomyelitis were discharged on intravenous therapy.

OBJECTIVE

For patients with acute osteomyelitis admitted to the hospital medicine service, we aimed to increase the proportion of cases discharged on oral antibiotics to at least 70%.

METHODS

The setting for our observational time series study was a large academic children's hospital. The model for improvement and plan-do-study-act cycles were used to test, refine and implement interventions identified through our key driver diagram. Our multifaceted intervention included a shared decision-making tool, an order set in our electronic health record, and education to faculty and trainees. We also included an identify and mitigate intervention to target providers caring for children with osteomyelitis in near-real time and reinforce the evidence-based recommendations. Data were analysed on an annotated g-chart of osteomyelitis cases between patients discharged on intravenous antibiotics. Structured chart review was used to identify treatment failures as well as length of stay and hospital charges in preintervention and postintervention groups.

RESULTS

The osteomyelitis cases between patients discharged on intravenous antibiotics increased from a median of 0 preintervention to a maximum of 9 cases following our identify and mitigate intervention. The direction and magnitude of successive improvements observed satisfied criteria for special cause variation. Improvement has been sustained for 1 year. Treatment failure and complications were uncommon in preintervention and postintervention phases. No significant differences in length of stay or charges were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for uncommon conditions, rapid and sustained evidence adoption is possible using quality improvement methods.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a web based decision aid to support parents' decisions about their child's Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination

•

The use of decision aids for immunisation decisions is under researched and controversial.

•

Parents receiving a decision aid or a leaflet had reduced decisional conflict for the MMR decision.

•

MMR uptake in the decision aid and control arms achieved levels required for population immunity.

•

Leaflet arm parents were less likely to vaccinate their child.

•

Childhood immunisation decision aids can achieve both informed decision-making and uptake.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of a web based decision aid versus a leaflet versus, usual practice in reducing parents’ decisional conflict for the first dose MMR vaccination decision. The, impact on MMR vaccine uptake was also explored.

Design

Three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Fifty GP practices in the north of, England. Participants: 220 first time parents making a first dose MMR decision. Interventions: Web, based MMR decision aid plus usual practice, MMR leaflet plus usual practice versus usual practice only, (control). Main outcome measures: Decisional conflict was the primary outcome and used as the, measure of parents’ levels of informed decision-making. MMR uptake was a secondary outcome.

Results

Decisional conflict decreased post-intervention for both intervention arms to a level where, parents could make an informed MMR decision (decision aid: effect estimate = 1.09, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.82; information leaflet: effect estimate = −0.67, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.46). Trial arm was significantly, associated (p < 0.001) with decisional conflict at post-intervention. Vaccination uptake was 100%, 91%, and 99% in the decision aid, leaflet and control arms, respectively (χ² (1, N = 203) = 8.69; p = 0.017). Post-hoc tests revealed a statistically significant difference in uptake between the information leaflet, and the usual practice arms (p = 0.04), and a near statistically significant difference between the, decision aid and leaflet arms (p = 0.05).

Conclusions

Parents’ decisional conflict was reduced in both, the decision aid and leaflet arms. The decision aid also prompted parents to act upon that decision and, vaccinate their child. Achieving both outcomes is fundamental to the integration of immunisation, decision aids within routine practice. Trial registration: ISRCTN72521372.

Shared decision-making to improve attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a shared decision-making intervention with parents of children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

METHODS

Seven pediatricians participated in a pre/post open trial of decision aids for use before and during the office visit to discuss diagnosis and develop a treatment plan. Encounters pre- (n=21, control group) and post-intervention implementation (n=33, intervention group) were compared. We video-recorded encounters and surveyed parents.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, intervention group parents were more involved in shared decision-making (31.2 vs. 43.8 on OPTION score, p<0.01), more knowledgeable (6.4 vs. 8.1 questions correct, p<0.01), and less conflicted about treatment options (16.2 vs. 10.7 on decisional conflict total score, p=0.06). Visit duration was unchanged (41.0 vs. 41.6min, p=0.75). There were no significant differences in the median number of follow-up visits (0 vs. 1 visits, p=0.08), or the proportion of children with medication titration (62% vs. 76%, p=0.28), or parent-completed behavior rating scale to assess treatment response (24% vs. 39%, p=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention increased shared decision-making with parents. Parents were better informed about treatment options without increasing visit duration.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions are available to prepare parents for visits and enable physicians to elicit parent preferences and involvement in decision-making.

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

A mixed methods study of parental vaccine decision making and parent-provider trust

OBJECTIVE

To describe parental vaccine decision making behaviors and characterize trust in physician advice among parents with varying childhood vaccination behaviors.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2011, a mixed methods study was conducted with parents of children aged <4 years who were members of Kaiser Permanente Colorado health plan. Seven focus groups were conducted with vaccine-hesitant parents. On the basis of findings from the focus groups, a survey was developed, pilot tested, and mailed to a stratified sample of 854 parents who accepted (n = 500), delayed (n = 227), or refused (n = 127) vaccinations for one of their children. Survey results were analyzed by chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Several themes emerged from the focus groups, including: 1) the vaccine decision-making process begins prenatally, 2) vaccine decision making is an evolving process, and 3) there is overall trust in the pediatrician but a lack of trust in the information they provided about vaccines. The survey response rate was 52% (n = 443). Parents who refused or delayed vaccines were 2 times more likely to report that they began thinking about vaccines before their child was born and 8 times more likely to report that they constantly reevaluate their vaccine decisions than parents who accepted all vaccines. Although parents tended to report trusting their pediatrician's advice on nutrition, behavior, and the physical examination, they did not believe their pediatrician provided "balanced" information on both the benefits and risks of vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

These results have implications for future interventions to address parental vaccination concerns. Such interventions may be more effective if they are applied early (during pregnancy) and often (pregnancy through infancy), and cover both the risks and benefits of vaccination.

Toward interactive, Internet-based decision aid for vaccination decisions: better information alone is not enough

Vaccination decisions, as in choosing whether or not to immunize one's small child against specific diseases, are both psychologically and computationally complex. The psychological complexities have been extensively studied, often in the context of shaping convincing or persuasive messages that will encourage parents to vaccinate their children. The computational complexity of the decision has been less noted. However, even if the parent has access to neutral, accurate, credible information on vaccination risks and benefits, he or she can easily be overwhelmed by the task of combining this information into a well-reasoned decision. We argue here that the Internet, in addition to its potential as an information source, could provide useful assistance to parents in integrating factual information with their own values and preferences - that is, in providing real decision aid as well as information aid. We sketch one approach for accomplishing this by means of a hierarchy of interactive decision aids ranging from simple advice to full-scale decision analysis.

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.

Pacific Islanders' perceived risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes

PURPOSE

To explore literature on Pacific Islanders' perceived risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes.

METHOD

A search of literature databases for English-language perceived risk research published from 2000 to 2008.

RESULTS

Few studies targeting perceived risk of CVD (n = 6) and diabetes (n = 4) included minority participants. No studies targeted Pacific Islanders exclusively. Overall, Pacific Islanders and other minority groups inaccurately perceive their risk of these conditions. No studies explored cultural relevancy or measurement of perceived risk.

IMPLICATIONS

Perceived risk, an integral part of health behavior change theories, is greatly understudied in Pacific Islanders. Perceived risk research for CVD and diabetes is sparse for any minority group. More research is needed to develop socioculturally appropriate interventions that promote accurate risk perceptions for both diseases and facilitate adoption of health behaviors. Ultimately, these behaviors will reduce the onset and devastating consequences of CVD and diabetes in Pacific Islanders and other minority populations.

Randomised cluster trial to support informed parental decision-making for the MMR vaccine

BACKGROUND

In the UK public concern about the safety of the combined measles, mumps and rubella [MMR] vaccine continues to impact on MMR coverage. Whilst the sharp decline in uptake has begun to level out, first and second dose uptake rates remain short of that required for population immunity. Furthermore, international research consistently shows that some parents lack confidence in making a decision about MMR vaccination for their children. Together, this work suggests that effective interventions are required to support parents to make informed decisions about MMR. This trial assessed the impact of a parent-centred, multi-component intervention (balanced information, group discussion, coaching exercise) on informed parental decision-making for MMR.

METHODS

This was a two arm, cluster randomised trial. One hundred and forty two UK parents of children eligible for MMR vaccination were recruited from six primary healthcare centres and six childcare organisations. The intervention arm received an MMR information leaflet and participated in the intervention (parent meeting). The control arm received the leaflet only. The primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were actual and intended MMR choice, knowledge, attitude, concern and necessity beliefs about MMR and anxiety.

RESULTS

Decisional conflict decreased for both arms to a level where an 'effective' MMR decision could be made one-week (effect estimate = -0.54, p < 0.001) and three-months (effect estimate = -0.60, p < 0.001) post-intervention. There was no significant difference between arms (effect estimate = 0.07, p = 0.215). Heightened decisional conflict was evident for parents making the MMR decision for their first child (effect estimate = -0.25, p = 0.003), who were concerned (effect estimate = 0.07, p < 0.001), had less positive attitudes (effect estimate = -0.20, p < 0.001) yet stronger intentions (effect estimate = 0.09, p = 0.006). Significantly more parents in the intervention arm reported vaccinating their child (93% versus 73%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst both the leaflet and the parent meeting reduced parents' decisional conflict, the parent meeting appeared to enable parents to act upon their decision leading to vaccination uptake.

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.

Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both

BACKGROUND

Structured antenatal education programs for childbirth or parenthood, or both, are commonly recommended for pregnant women and their partners by healthcare professionals in many parts of the world. Such programs are usually offered to groups but may be offered to individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of this education on knowledge acquisition, anxiety, sense of control, pain, labour and birth support, breastfeeding, infant-care abilities, and psychological and social adjustment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2006), CINAHL (1982 to April 2006), ERIC (1984 to April 2006), EMBASE (1980 to April 2006) and PsycINFO (1988 to April 2006). We handsearched the Journal of Psychosomatic Research from 1956 to April 2006 and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of any structured educational program provided during pregnancy by an educator to either parent that included information related to pregnancy, birth or parenthood. The educational interventions could have been provided on an individual or group basis. Educational interventions directed exclusively to either increasing breastfeeding success, knowledge of and coping skills concerning postpartum depression, improving maternal psycho-social health including anxiety, depression and self-esteem or reducing smoking were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published reports.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, involving 2284 women, were included. Thirty-seven studies were excluded. Educational interventions were the focus of eight of the studies (combined n = 1009). Details of the randomization procedure, allocation concealment, and/or participant accrual or loss for these trials were not reported. No consistent results were found. Sample sizes were very small to moderate, ranging from 10 to 318. No data were reported concerning anxiety, breastfeeding success, or general social support. Knowledge acquisition, sense of control, factors related to infant-care competencies, and some labour and birth outcomes were measured. The largest of the included studies (n = 1275) examined an educational and social support intervention to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section. This high-quality study showed similar rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section in 'verbal' and 'document' groups (relative risk 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.21).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of general antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both, remain largely unknown. Individualized prenatal education directed toward avoidance of a repeat caesarean birth does not increase the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section.

Addressing parents' concerns about childhood immunizations: a tutorial for primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Despite the dangers of vaccine-preventable infections and efforts by health care professionals to promote immunization, parents' resistance to routine childhood immunizations continues to grow. This phenomenon can give rise to frustration among health care providers, as well as create barriers in providing medical care to children in need. In response, we developed a CD-ROM-based tutorial that (1) explains the nature and origins of parents' concerns, (2) addresses clinical implications of resistance to immunization, (3) explores ethical and professional obligations that physicians have toward children and their parents, and (4) discusses how physicians can effectively address parents' concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Our goals were to evaluate the tutorial's effectiveness in improving physicians' (1) general knowledge about parents' resistance to childhood immunizations, (2) knowledge of adverse effects of immunization, and (3) attitudes toward parents' resistance to childhood immunization.

DESIGN/METHODS

After pretesting, expert review, and revision, the 45-minute Penn State Immunization Project tutorial was pilot tested with pediatric and family medicine residents at 7 training programs in 4 states (Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Iowa). Knowledge and attitudes were assessed by using a 26-item pretest/posttest, the results of which were then analyzed by using standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 122 residents completed the pretest/posttest. Statistically and clinically significant improvements were seen in residents' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and all 5 attitudinal measures regarding childhood immunizations.

CONCLUSIONS

The tutorial Addressing Parents Concerns About Childhood Immunizations: A Tutorial for Primary Care Providers is effective in improving resident physicians' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and attitudes. As such, this tutorial has the potential to enhance communication between parents and primary care providers and, more generally, improve clinicians' response to the growing resistance toward routine childhood immunizations.

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.