A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods

User-Centered Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Early Abortion Method: Multi-Cycle Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

People seeking abortion in early pregnancy have the choice between medication and procedural options for care. The choice is preference-sensitive-there is no clinically superior option and the choice depends on what matters most to the individual patient. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are shared decision-making tools that support people in making informed, values-aligned health care choices.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of a web-based PtDA for the Canadian context, where abortion care is publicly funded and available without legal restriction.

METHODS

We used a systematic, user-centered design approach guided by principles of integrated knowledge translation. We first developed a prototype using available evidence for abortion seekers' decisional needs and the risks, benefits, and consequences of each option. We then refined the prototype through think-aloud interviews with participants at risk of unintended pregnancy ("patient" participants). Interviews were audio-recorded and documented through field notes. Finally, we conducted a web-based survey of patients and health care professionals involved with abortion care, which included the System Usability Scale. We used content analysis to identify usability issues described in the field notes and open-ended survey questions, and descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and close-ended survey responses.

RESULTS

A total of 61 individuals participated in this study. Further, 11 patients participated in think-aloud interviews. Overall, the response to the PtDA was positive; however, the content analysis identified issues related to the design, language, and information about the process and experience of obtaining abortion care. In response, we adapted the PtDA into an interactive website and revised it to include consistent and plain language, additional information (eg, pain experience narratives), and links to additional resources on how to find an abortion health care professional. In total, 25 patients and 25 health care professionals completed the survey. The mean System Usability Scale score met the threshold for good usability among both patient and health care professional participants. Most participants felt that the PtDA was user-friendly (patients: n=25, 100%; health care professionals: n=22, 88%), was not missing information (patients: n=21, 84%; health care professionals: n=18, 72%), and that it was appropriate for patients to complete the PtDA before a consultation (patients: n=23, 92%; health care professionals: n=23, 92%). Open-ended responses focused on improving usability by reducing the length of the PtDA and making the website more mobile-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically designed the PtDA to address an unmet need to support informed, values-aligned decision-making about the method of abortion. The design process responded to a need identified by potential users and addressed unique sensitivities related to reproductive health decision-making.

Factors Influencing Abortion Decision-Making of Adolescents and Young Women: A Narrative Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Globally, about half of all induced abortions have been estimated to be unsafe, which results in 13% of maternal deaths yearly. Of these induced abortions, 41% of unsafe abortions have been reported in young women who are dependent on their parents for their livelihood. They are often left in a vulnerable position and may have difficulty in making a decision regarding abortion. This study aimed to (1) characterize and map factors that influence abortion decision-making of adolescents and young women, and (2) identify the care and support that they need in their decision-making process.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the JBI method and PRISMA-ScR checklist. We comprehensively searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycInfo, and hand searched publications in the Google Scholar database between November 2021 and October 2023. The search included all English language qualitative and mixed methods research articles published on the database up to October 2023 that included participants aged 10-24 years. The CASP checklist was used as a guide for the qualitative analysis. NVivo was used to synthesize the findings.

RESULTS

There were 18 studies from 14 countries (N = 1543 young women) that met the inclusion criteria. Three domains and eleven categories were included as follows: personal (desire for self-realization and unwanted pregnancy), interpersonal (parental impact, reaction of partner, roles of peers and friends, existence of own child, and lack of support), and social circumstances (sexual crime, financial problem, limitation of choice, and underutilized healthcare services). Decision-making factors regarding abortions were also found across all three domains.

CONCLUSION

The abortion decision-making of young women is influenced by various external factors regardless of country. Parents are especially influential and tend to force their daughters to make a decision. Young women experienced suffering, frustration, and lack of autonomy in making decisions based on their preference. This emphasizes the importance of autonomous decision-making. In this regard, healthcare services should be used. However, there are barriers to accessing these services. To improve such access, the following are required: staff training to provide adolescent and youth-friendly health services, counseling based on women's needs, counseling including the parents or guardians that is confidential and ethical, promotion of decision aids, and affordable accessible care.

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.

Women's preferences for less active ectopic pregnancy treatment: A discrete choice experiment

RESEARCH QUESTION

Shared decision-making has become a hallmark of quality care and is increasingly spotlighted in practice guidelines. Little is known about women's views for treatment of less active ectopic pregnancy. What are the preferences of women for less active ectopic pregnancy treatment-related attributes?

DESIGN

A discrete choice model with 8 attributes depicting ectopic pregnancy treatment including varying levels of first-line treatment effectiveness, length of hospitalization, cost, length of sick leave, of convalescence, need for surgical management, for emergency care during convalescence and for tube removal was used. Childbearing aged women, i.e. those who might experience an ectopic pregnancy in the future, were recruited. They were asked to choose between hypothetical treatments in 18 choice tasks with different levels of all treatment attributes. A conditional logit McFadden's choice model was performed. The main outcome measure was preference weights for less active ectopic pregnancy treatment-related attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 5770 observations from 178 women were analysed. The attributes displaying the highest marginal impacts on women's decisions included: higher rate of first-line treatment effectiveness, lower rate of tube removal, lower rate of surgical management, shorter length of hospitalization and, to a lesser extent, but still significant, shorter length of convalescence, absence of risk of emergency care during convalescence and lower cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Trade-offs made by women between the attributes of less active ectopic pregnancy treatment suggest that no treatment option, either medical or surgical, is an obvious preferred option. These results encourage the promotion of shared decision-making.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

Promoting or Undermining Quality Decision Making? A Qualitative Content Analysis of Patient Decision Aids Comparing Surgical and Medication Abortion

OBJECTIVES

To understand, describe, and compare the content of patient decision aids on surgical and medication abortion, including 1) attributes used to describe each method, 2) approaches to clarify patients' values, 3) language used to describe each method, and 4) language used to frame women's decision-making role.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed 49 decision aids identified through a previous systematic review and environmental scan. We used summative content analysis for objectives 1 and 2 and directed content analysis for objectives 3 and 4.

RESULTS

We identified 37 method attributes. Overall, the attributes privileged medical over practical and emotional information. One decision aid included an explicit values clarification approach, and others included implicit approaches, which varied in length, information consistency, and organization. We identified four themes-information consistency, subjective claims, emotive or ambiguous descriptions, and medication abortion as not a real abortion-related to the methods' descriptions. We identified three themes-agency in choice, unclear emphasis on women's preferences, and endorsement of clinic services-related to women's decision-making role. Of the nine tools that listed factors influencing women's decision making, patient preferences was often listed last.

CONCLUSIONS

Early abortion method decision aids presented a broad range of information and typically framed the method choice as the woman's. However, their emphasis on medical attributes, use of inconsistent information, and, at times, biased presentation of methods may undermine quality decision making. We recommend adapting an existing decision aid or designing a novel tool based on the content and language that women find most acceptable.

Evaluating the Use of a Decision Aid for Parents Facing Extremely Premature Delivery: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess decisional conflict and knowledge about prematurity among mothers facing extreme premature delivery when the counseling clinicians were randomized to counsel using a validated decision aid compared with usual counseling.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized trial, clinicians at 5 level III neonatal intensive care units in the US were randomized to supplement counseling using the decision aid or to counsel mothers in their usual manner. We enrolled mothers with threatened premature delivery at 22^0/7 to 25^6/7 weeks of gestation within 7 days of their counseling. The primary outcome was the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) score. One hundred mothers per group were enrolled to detect a clinically relevant effect size of 0.4 in the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes included knowledge about prematurity; scores on the Preparedness for Decision Making scale; and acceptability.

RESULTS

Ninety-two clinicians were randomized and 316 mothers were counseled. Of these, 201 (64%) mothers were enrolled. The median gestational age was 24.1 weeks (IQR 23.7-24.9). In both groups, DCS scores were low (16.3 ± 18.2 vs 16.8 ± 17, P = .97) and Preparedness for Decision Making scores were high (73.4 ± 28.3 vs 70.5 ± 31.1, P = .33). There was a significantly greater knowledge score in the decision aid group (66.2 ± 18.5 vs 57.2 ± 18.8, P = .005). Most clinicians and parents found the decision aid useful.

CONCLUSIONS

For parents facing extremely premature delivery, use of a decision aid did not impact maternal decisional conflict, but it significantly improved knowledge of complex information. A structured decision aid may improve comprehension of complex information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01713894.

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

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

Pathways: patient-centred decision counselling for women at risk of cancer-related infertility: a protocol for a comparative effectiveness cluster randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines recommend that all reproductive-age women with cancer be informed of their fertility risks and offered referral to fertility specialists to discuss fertility preservation options. However, reports indicate that only 5% of patients have consultations, and rates of long-term infertility-related distress remain high. Previous studies report several barriers to fertility preservation; however, initial success has been reported using provider education, patient decision aids and navigation support. This protocol will test effects of a multicomponent intervention compared with usual care on women's fertility preservation knowledge and decision-making outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This cluster-randomised trial will compare the multicomponent intervention (provider education, patient decision aid and navigation support) with usual care (consultation and referral, if requested). One hundred newly diagnosed English-speaking women of reproductive age who are at risk of cancer-related infertility will be recruited from four regional oncology clinics.The Pathways patient decision aid website provides (1) up-to-date evidence and descriptions of fertility preservation and other family-building options, tailored to cancer type; (2) structured guidance to support personalising the information and informed decision-making; and (3) a printable summary to help women prepare for discussions with their oncologist and/or fertility specialist. Four sites will be randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Participants will be recruited after their oncology consultation and asked to complete online questionnaires at baseline, 1 week and 2 months to assess their demographics, fertility preservation knowledge, and decision-making process and quality. The primary outcome (decisional conflict) will be tested using Fisher's exact test. Secondary outcomes will be assessed using generalised linear mixed models, and sensitivity analyses will be conducted, as appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center provided approval and ongoing review of this protocol. Results will be presented at relevant scientific meetings and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03141437; Pre-results.

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Rates of cesarean delivery are continuously increasing in industrialized countries, with repeated cesarean accounting for about a third of all cesareans. Women who have undergone a first cesarean are facing a difficult choice for their next pregnancy, i.e.: (1) to plan for a second cesarean delivery, associated with higher risk of maternal complications than vaginal delivery; or (b) to have a trial of labor (TOL) with the aim to achieve a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and to accept a significant, but rare, risk of uterine rupture and its related maternal and neonatal complications. The objective of this trial is to assess whether a multifaceted intervention would reduce the rate of major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean.

Methods/design

The study is a stratified, non-blinded, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial of a multifaceted intervention. Hospitals in Quebec are the units of randomization and women are the units of analysis. As depicted in Figure 1, the study includes a 1-year pre-intervention period (baseline), a 5-month implementation period, and a 2-year intervention period. At the end of the baseline period, 20 hospitals will be allocated to the intervention group and 20 to the control group, using a randomization stratified by level of care. Medical records will be used to collect data before and during the intervention period. Primary outcome is the rate of a composite of major perinatal morbidities measured during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes include major and minor maternal morbidity; minor perinatal morbidity; and TOL and VBAC rate. The effect of the intervention will be assessed using the multivariable generalized-estimating-equations extension of logistic regression. The evaluation will include subgroup analyses for preterm and term birth, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Discussion

The intervention is designed to facilitate: (1) women’s decision-making process, using a decision analysis tool (DAT), (2) an estimate of uterine rupture risk during TOL using ultrasound evaluation of low-uterine segment thickness, (3) an estimate of chance of TOL success, using a validated prediction tool, and (4) the implementation of best practices for intrapartum management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN15346559. Registered on 20 August 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantity over quality-Findings from a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids on early abortion methods

Background

The availability and effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) on early abortion methods remain unknown, despite their potential for supporting women's decision making.

Objective

To describe the availability, impact and quality of DAs on surgical and medical early abortion methods for women seeking induced abortion.

Search strategy

For the systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. For the environmental scan, we searched Google and App Stores and consulted key informants.

Inclusion criteria

For the systematic review, we included studies evaluating an early abortion method DA (any format and language) vs a comparison group on women's decision making. DAs must have met the Stacey et al (2014). Cochrane review definition of DAs. For the environmental scan, we included English DAs developed for the US context.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted study and DA characteristics, assessed study quality using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias tool and assessed DA quality using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).

Results

The systematic review identified one study, which found that the DA group had higher knowledge and felt more informed. The evaluated DA met few IPDAS criteria. In contrast, the environmental scan identified 49 DAs created by non‐specialists. On average, these met 28% of IPDAS criteria for Content, 22% for Development and 0% for Effectiveness.

Conclusions

Research evaluating DAs on early abortion methods is lacking, and although many tools are accessible, they demonstrate suboptimal quality. Efforts to revise existing or develop new DAs, support patients to identify high‐quality DAs and facilitate non‐specialist developers' adoption of best practices for DA development are needed.

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.

Patient Acceptability of the Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid (YoDDA) Booklet: A Prospective Non-Randomized Comparison Study Across 6 Predialysis Services

♦

BACKGROUND

Patients are satisfied with their kidney care but want more support in making dialysis choices. Predialysis leaflets vary across services, with few being sufficient to enable patients' informed decision making. We describe the acceptability of a patient decision aid and feasibility of evaluating its effectiveness within usual predialysis practice. ♦

METHODS

Prospective non-randomized comparison design, Usual Care or Usual Care Plus Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid Booklet (+YoDDA), in 6 referral centers (Yorkshire-Humber, UK) for patients with sustained deterioration of kidney function. Consenting (C) patients completed questionnaires after predialysis consultation (T1), and 6 weeks later (T2). Measures assessed YoDDA's utility to support patients' decisions and integration within usual care. ♦

RESULTS

Usual Care (n = 105) and +YoDDA (n = 84) participant characteristics were similar: male (62%), white (94%), age (mean = 62.6; standard deviation [SD] 14.4), kidney disease severity (glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] mean = 14.7; SD 3.7); decisional conflict was < 25; choice-preference for home versus hospital dialysis approximately 50:50. Patients valued receiving YoDDA, reading it on their own (96%), and sharing it with family (72%). The +YoDDA participants had higher scores for understanding kidney disease, reasoning about options, feeling in control, sharing their decision with family. Study engagement varied by center (estimated range 14 - 49%; mean 45%); participants varied in completion of decision quality measures. ♦

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving YoDDA as part of predialysis education was valued and useful to patients with worsening kidney disease. Integrating YoDDA actively within predialysis programs will meet clinical guidelines and patient need to support dialysis decision making in the context of patients' lifestyle.

Presenting risk information in sexual and reproductive health care

OBJECTIVES

Presenting risk information to patients is an important part of clinical encounters. Good risk communication improves patient satisfaction with their care and the decisions they make. In sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH), women frequently need to make decisions based on their perceived risk. Risk perception can be altered by how actual risk is presented to patients.

METHODS

Databases were searched using MeSH terms combined with a keyword search for articles relevant to SRH; the search was limited to English language.

RESULTS

Personalised risk communication where a risk score is provided, increases knowledge and slightly increases uptake of screening tests. Decision aids improve a patient's knowledge of the options, create realistic expectations of their benefits and harms, reduce difficulty with decision-making, and increase participation in the process. The most effective way to present risks uses a range of structured, tailored presentation styles; interactive formats are best. Framing the information improves patient understanding. Most people understand natural frequencies or event rates better than probability formats with varying denominators. Expressing changes in risk as an absolute risk reduction or relative risk reduction with baseline risk formats improves understanding. Descriptive terms such as 'low risk' or 'high risk' should be quantified as a frequency rather than a percentage. Using a consistent denominator to portray risk is recommended. Using the 'number needed to treat' and visual aids puts benefits or risks into perspective. The duration of risk should be presented.

CONCLUSION

Presenting risk information to patients can be optimised using a number of strategies.

The impact of a computerized decision aid on empowering pregnant women for choosing vaginal versus cesarean section delivery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) is one of the main reasons for cesarean delivery in Iran, and women often need help in making a decision about the delivery options available to them. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of a computerized decision aid (CDA) system on empowering pregnant women in choosing an appropriate mode of delivery. This CDA contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of vaginal versus cesarean section delivery in terms of their value to the individual woman.

Methods/Design

The protocol concerns a randomized trial study that will be performed among Iranian women. Four hundred pregnant women will be recruited from two private and two public prenatal centers in Mashhad, Iran. They will be randomly assigned to either an intervention or a control group. The designed CDA will be provided to the intervention group, whereas the control group will only receive routine care. The CDA provides educational contents as well as some recommendations. The CDA’s knowledge base is obtained from the results of studies on predictors of cesarean delivery. The CDA’s software will be installed on women’s computers for use at home.

The two primary outcomes for the study are O’Connor’s Decisional Conflict Scale and knowledge as measured by true/false questions. Actual mode of delivery (vaginal versus cesarean) will be compared in the two groups.

Discussion

We investigate the effect of a CDA on empowering pregnant women in terms of reducing their decisional conflict as well as on improving their clinical knowledge pertaining to mode of delivery.

Trial registration

This trial is registered with the Iran Trial Registrar under registration number IRCT2015093010777N4 and registration date 26 October 2015.

The motherhood choices decision aid for women with rheumatoid arthritis increases knowledge and reduces decisional conflict: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

For many women with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) motherhood decisions are complicated by their condition and complex pharmacological treatments. Decisions about having children or expanding their family require relevant knowledge and consultation with their family and physician as conception and pregnancy has to be managed within the RA context. Relevant information is not readily available to women with RA. Therefore a randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a new motherhood decision aid (DA) developed specifically for women with RA.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-four women were randomly allocated to either an intervention or control group. All women completed a battery of questionnaires at pre-intervention, including, the Pregnancy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Questionnaire (PiRAQ), the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES), and provided basic demographic information. Women in the DA group were sent an electronic version of the DA, and completed the battery of questionnaires for a second time post-intervention.

RESULTS

Women who received the DA had a 13 % increase in relevant knowledge (PiRAQ) scores and a 15 % decrease in scores on the decisional conflict (DCS), compared to the control group (1 %, 2 % respectively). No adverse psychological effects were detected as evident in unchanged levels of depression and anxiety symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that this DA may be an effective tool in assisting women with RA when contemplating having children or more children.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, http://www.anzctr.org.au/ , ACTRN12615000523505.

Medical versus surgical methods of early abortion: protocol for a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids

INTRODUCTION

Currently, we lack understanding of the content, quality and impact of patient decision aids to support decision-making between medical and surgical methods of early abortion. We plan to undertake a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature to identify, appraise and describe the impact of early abortion method decision aids evaluated quantitatively (Part I), and an environmental scan to identify and appraise other early abortion method decision aids developed in the US (Part II).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

For the systematic review, we will search PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for articles describing experimental and observational studies evaluating the impact of an early abortion method decision aid on women's decision-making processes and outcomes. For the environmental scan, we will identify decision aids by supplementing the systematic review search with Internet-based searches and key informant consultation. The primary reviewer will assess all studies and decision aids for eligibility, and a second reviewer will also assess a subset of these. Both reviewers will independently assess risk of bias in the studies and abstract data using a piloted form. Finally, both reviewers will assess decision aid quality using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, ease of readability using Flesch/Flesch-Kincaid tests, and informational content using directed content analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this study does not involve human subjects, ethical approval will not be sought. We aim to disseminate the findings in a scientific journal, via academic and/or professional conferences and among the broader community to contribute knowledge about current early abortion method decision-making support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015016717).

Shared decision-making and decision support: their role in obstetrics and gynecology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the role for shared decision-making in obstetrics/gynecology and to review evidence on the impact of decision aids on reproductive health decision-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among the 155 studies included in a 2014 Cochrane review of decision aids, 31 (29%) addressed reproductive health decisions. Although the majority did not show evidence of an effect on treatment choice, there was a greater uptake of mammography in selected groups of women exposed to decision aids compared with usual care; and a statistically significant reduction in the uptake of hormone replacement therapy among detailed decision aid users compared with simple decision aid users. Studies also found an effect on patient-centered outcomes of care, such as medication adherence, quality-of-life measures, and anxiety scores. In maternity care, only decision analysis tools affected final treatment choice, and patient-directed aids yielded no difference in planned mode of birth after cesarean.

SUMMARY

There is untapped potential for obstetricians/gynecologists to optimize decision support for reproductive health decisions. Given the limited evidence-base guiding practice, the preference-sensitive nature of reproductive health decisions, and the increase in policy efforts and financial incentives to optimize patients' satisfaction, it is increasingly important for obstetricians/gynecologists to appreciate the role of shared decision-making and decision support in providing patient-centered reproductive healthcare.

Patients or Volunteers? The Impact of Motivation for Trial Participation on the Efficacy of Patient Decision Aids: A Secondary Analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Background. Efficacy of patient decision aids (PtDAs) may be influenced by trial participants’ identity either as patients seeking to benefit personally from involvement or as volunteers supporting the research effort. Aim. To determine if study characteristics indicative of participants’ trial identity might influence PtDA efficacy. Methods. We undertook exploratory subgroup meta-analysis of the 2011 Cochrane review of PtDAs, including trials that compared PtDA with usual care for treatment decisions. We extracted data on whether participants initiated the care pathway, setting, practitioner interactions, and 6 outcome variables (knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear about values, and participation). The main subgroup analysis categorized trials as “volunteerism” or “patienthood” on the basis of whether participants initiated the care pathway. A supplementary subgroup analysis categorized trials on the basis of whether any volunteerism factors were present (participants had not initiated the care pathway, had attended a research setting, or had a face-to-face interaction with a researcher). Results. Twenty-nine trials were included. Compared with volunteerism trials, pooled effect sizes were higher in patienthood trials (where participants initiated the care pathway) for knowledge, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear, and participation. The subgroup difference was statistically significant for knowledge only ( P = 0.03). When trials were compared on the basis of whether volunteerism factors were present, knowledge was significantly greater in patienthood trials ( P < 0.001), but there was otherwise no consistent pattern of differences in effects across outcomes. Conclusions. There is a tendency toward greater PtDA efficacy in trials in which participants initiate the pathway of care. Knowledge acquisition appears to be greater in trials where participants are predominantly patients rather than volunteers.

Minimum standards for the certification of patient decision support interventions: feasibility and application

OBJECTIVE

Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions.

METHODS

A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards.

RESULTS

Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.

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.

Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures

BACKGROUND

Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken.  However, it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can understand and retain, opportunity to consider their options, and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions.  There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions within the search. We also searched reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. We considered an intervention to be intended to promote informed consent when information delivery about the procedure was enhanced (either by providing more information or through, for example, using new written materials), or if more opportunity to consider or deliberate on the information was provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of outcomes where there were sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 randomised controlled trials from 12 countries involving patients undergoing a variety of procedures in hospitals. Nine thousand and twenty one patients were randomised and entered into these studies. Interventions used various designs and formats but the main data for results were from studies using written materials, audio-visual materials and decision aids. Some interventions were delivered before admission to hospital for the procedure while others were delivered on admission.Only one study attempted to measure the primary outcome, which was informed consent as a unified concept, but this study was at high risk of bias.  More commonly, studies measured secondary outcomes which were individual components of informed consent such as knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction with the consent process.  Important but less commonly-measured outcomes were deliberation, decisional conflict, uptake of procedures and length of consultation.Meta-analyses showed statistically-significant improvements in knowledge when measured immediately after interventions (SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) I(2) 73%), shortly afterwards (between 24 hours and 14 days) (SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) I(2) 85%) and at a later date (15 days or more) (SMD 0.78 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.06) I(2) 82%). Satisfaction with decision making was also increased (SMD 2.25 (95% CI 1.36 to 3.15) I(2) 99%) and decisional conflict was reduced (SMD -1.80 (95% CI -3.46 to -0.14) I(2) 99%). No statistically-significant differences were found for generalised anxiety (SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) I(2) 82%), anxiety with the consent process (SMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23) I(2) 70%) and satisfaction with the consent process (SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.32) I(2) 76%). Consultation length was increased in those studies with continuous data (mean increase 1.66 minutes (95% CI 0.82 to 2.50) I(2) 0%) and in the one study with non-parametric data (control 8.0 minutes versus intervention 11.9 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) of 4 to 11.9 and 7.2 to 15.0 respectively). There were limited data for other outcomes.In general, sensitivity analyses removing studies at high risk of bias made little difference to the overall results. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care.  We have identified efforts by researchers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance informed consent.  The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge, an important prerequisite for informed consent.  This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions. Only one study attempted to measure informed consent as a unified concept.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

The Impact of Explicit Values Clarification Exercises in a Patient Decision Aid Emerges After the Decision Is Actually Made

Purpose

To determine if particular values clarification exercises included in a patient decision aid had discernible impact on postdecisional regret in patients with early-stage prostate cancer.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial compared 2 versions of a computerized patient decision aid: only structured information compared to the structured information plus values clarification exercises. Assessments were conducted during the decision aid visit; telephone follow-up interviews were conducted when patients made their decisions with their physician, 3 months after completing treatment, and >1 year later (per a mailing). Outcome measures included the Decisional Conflict Scale, the Preparation for Decision Making Scale, and the Decision Regret Scale.

Results

A total of 156 patients participated, 75 provided information only and 81 provided information plus values clarification exercises. The groups did not differ significantly on any outcome evaluated at the decision aid visit; in both groups, decisional conflict decreased immediately after using the decision aid. Between-group differences emerged after the decision was actually made. The values clarification exercises group reported higher Preparation for Decision Making Scale scores at the decision follow-up and at the >1-year follow-up. Regret did not differ significantly between groups at the 3-month follow-up but was lower for the values clarification exercises group than for the information group at the >1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the values clarification exercises led to better preparation for decision making and to less regret. The impact, however, only emerged after the decision was made.

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.

Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients make informed treatment decisions. Values clarification (VC) techniques are part of decision aids that help patients assimilate the information with their personal values. There is little evidence that these techniques contribute to enhanced decision making over and above the provision of good quality information.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether VC techniques are active ingredients in enhancing informed decision making and explain how and why they work.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (i) information only, (ii) information plus implicit task, (iii) information plus explicit task. Thirty healthy women from a UK University participated by making a hypothetical choice between taking part in a clinical trial and having the standard treatment for breast cancer. Verbal protocols were elicited by think-aloud method and content analysed to assess informed decision making; a questionnaire was completed after the decision assessing decision preference, perceptions of decisional conflict and ambivalence. Data were analysed using multivariate statistics.

FINDINGS

No participants changed their decision preference as a result of the VC techniques. Women in the explicit VC group evaluated more information in accord with personal values, expressed lower ambivalence, decisional uncertainty and greater clarity of personal values than those in the implicit VC and control groups. Feelings of ambivalence about both options were related to decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Explicit VC techniques are likely to be active ingredients in decision aids. They work by enabling people to deliberate about the decision information in accord with their personal values, which is associated with a better decision experience.

Service provision for women undergoing termination of pregnancy: progress in Wales, UK

BACKGROUND

This audit established a recent picture of termination of pregnancy services in Wales, UK using the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' Guidelines as a baseline. The context of abortion is rapidly changing and services need to be adaptable to meet women's needs.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was sent to all National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in Wales; 10 out of 13 responded.

RESULTS

In the nine Trusts performing abortions in Wales, medical abortions accounted for 57% and surgical abortions for 43%. Doctors in training were involved in six Trusts. All but one Trust complied with referral times. Five Trusts provided a dedicated clinic. Written information provided prior to abortion varied in accessibility and quality. Choice of abortion within gestation bands was limited in some Trusts with some only providing medical termination. Essential abortion aftercare was performed by Trusts, whereas follow-up and counselling were less comprehensive.

DISCUSSION

Trusts are willing to adapt to new methods of working with an increasing number of medical terminations, although this advantage was offset by a lack of choice of abortion methods offered by some Trusts. Doctors in training should be offered exposure to abortion procedures in all Trusts as this has been shown elsewhere to improve attitudes. Providing dedicated abortion clinics, quality written information and comprehensive abortion aftercare should improve compliance with the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Overall, in Wales there is compliance with national guidelines, although for a number of the guideline recommendations there remains room for improvement.

The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions?

OBJECTIVE

To discuss whether using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration checklist as a gold standard to judge interventions' quality is premature and potentially detrimental to the validity of resources designed to help patients make treatment choices.

METHODS

Conceptual review integrating the science behind individuals' decision making with the demands of designing complex, healthcare interventions.

RESULTS

Patient decision aids are promoted as interventions to help professionals engage in shared and/or patient-centred care. The IPDAS domains were informed by experts' opinions of best practice. Decision scientists study how individuals make decisions, what biases their choices and how best to support decisions. There is debate from decision scientists about which component parts are the active ingredients that help people make decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to help patients make choices have different purposes, component parts and outcomes to those facilitating professional-patient communications. The IPDAS checklist will change to respond to new evidence from the decision sciences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Adhering uncritically to the IPDAS checklist may reduce service variation but is not sufficient to ensure interventions enable good patient decision making. Developers must be encouraged to reason about the IPDAS checklist to identify those component parts that do (not) meet their intervention's purpose.

Deciding how many embryos to transfer after in vitro fertilisation: development and pilot test of a decision aid

OBJECTIVE

When deciding how many embryos to transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF), clinicians and patients have to balance optimizing the chance of pregnancy against preventing multiple pregnancies and the associated complications. This paper describes the development and pilot test of a patient decision aid (DA) for this purpose.

METHODS

The development of the DA consisted of a literature search, establishment of the format, and a pilot test among IVF patients. The DA development was supervised by a panel of experts in the fields of subfertility, obstetrics and DA-research and it was based on the criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

RESULTS

One Cochrane review and 34 articles were selected for the DA content. The DA presents information in text, summaries, tables, figures and through an interactive worksheet. The DA was reviewed positively and as acceptable for use in clinical practice by patients and professionals.

CONCLUSION

The DA was thoroughly developed and is likely to be helpful for the decision-making process for the number of embryos transferred after IVF.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians and researchers can use the DA without restriction in clinical practice or research related to decision-making.

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.

Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

To describe the views of health care decision-makers and providers operating in the UK National Health Service (NHS) concerning the concepts of cost-effectiveness, equity and access through a series of attitudinal questions; to evaluate the preferences of health care providers in relation to each of these concepts using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); to assess the impact of prior completion of an attitude questionnaire on preferences elicited through a DCE.

METHOD

Three versions of a DCE questionnaire were developed with and without a series of attitudinal questions and randomly distributed to 1456 health care decision-makers and providers. The questionnaire sought to elicit their preferences between the competing objectives of cost-effectiveness, equity and access within the context of different hypothetical, specialist treatment programmes for cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

The response rate was 26%. Female respondents exhibited a stronger preference than males for reducing health inequalities by targeting the worst off (Wald test, P<0.001). Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) or Department of Health (DoH) staff were also more likely than hospital managers to favour programmes that targeted the worst off (Wald test, P<0.001 in each case). Those who were clinically trained and currently in a clinical post had a stronger preference for programmes with shorter waiting times compared to those in a managerial or non-clinical posts, who exhibited stronger preferences for equity. Completion of a series of attitudinal questions prior to completing the DCE task resulted in a lower proportion of dominant responses and an increased willingness to make trade-offs between attributes.

A review of developments in medical termination of pregnancy

AIM

This literature review aims to supplement guidelines by providing an overview of recent evidence relevant to medical termination of pregnancy.

BACKGROUND

Termination of pregnancy is available to women in the UK within legal parameters. Although guidelines form a strong body of evidence on which nurses and midwives can base their practice, there is a need to supplement them with up-to-date robust research findings.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature with high sensitivity and low specificity was undertaken on five databases using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms including (medical) induced abortion, therapeutic abortion and termination of pregnancy.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed articles under the following headings: The importance of choice for the women involved the need for the optimal medication type, dose, route and interval between stages one and two, and the optimum place for medical termination to take place.

CONCLUSION

It was found that women attach a great deal of importance to the opportunity to choose their method of termination. The first stage of mifepristone is now a standard practice and an optimum dose has been determined. Several studies examined misoprostol used in the second stage of medical termination. There was some evidence for repeated doses of misoprostol, particularly in later gestation, with conflicting evidence on the optimal route. There were some grounds for reducing the interval between stages. Consideration should be given to home medical termination based on individual circumstances and choice. Gestation and previous obstetric history is an important factor to take into account when determining optimal regimen. Relevance to clinical practice. The number of medical termination of pregnancies performed has risen in recent years together with the nurses' involvement. As new research is published, it is imperative that nurses adapt to base their involvement on the best available evidence.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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

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

Decision 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.