Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women’s informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458]

The effect of a prior e-learning tool on genetic counseling outcomes in diverse ethnic couples with abnormal Down syndrome screening tests: A randomized controlled trial

Genetic counseling (GC) following abnormal Down syndrome (DS) screening tests aims to ensure learning of complex medical concepts and discussion of counselees' personal desires. Pre-GC use of electronic learning tools (e-learning tools) can facilitate GC sessions by allowing more time for dialogue rather than learning medical and genetic concepts, enabling greater focus on the counselee's decisional, psychological, and personal needs. Few studies have investigated such tools for DS screening tests and those who have focused on screening uptake rather than abnormal results and implications. This study evaluated prenatal GC outcomes following implementation of an e-learning tool utilizing an educational animated movie for couples of varied ethnic backgrounds in northern Israel, with abnormal DS screening tests. E-learning tool impact was assessed as knowledge level, informed choices, satisfaction with the intervention and GC process, the state of anxiety and duration of the GC meeting. The 321 study participants were randomized to three groups: animation movie, booklet, and control. All participants had been asked to complete pre- and post-counseling questionnaires. Outcome scores were compared between the research groups. Results showed increased knowledge level in general among participants in the animation group; among minority participants, the highest knowledge level was in the animation group. Anxiety levels and informed choices were not statistically different among the groups. However, watching the animation, Jewish ethnicity, good level of genetic literacy, and academic degree were significant predictors of informed choice, and those who watched the animation were three times more likely to make an informed choice than the control group. Our findings suggest that this e-learning tool is efficient and acceptable for the general population. Special attention is needed for minorities with lower genetic literacy and education.

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.

Strategies to improve interpersonal communication along the continuum of maternal and newborn care: A scoping review and narrative synthesis

Effective interpersonal communication is essential to provide respectful and quality maternal and newborn care (MNC). This scoping review mapped, categorized, and analysed strategies implemented to improve interpersonal communication within MNC up to 42 days after birth. Twelve bibliographic databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated interventions to improve interpersonal communication between health workers and women, their partners or newborns' families. Eligible studies were published in English between January 1st 2000 and July 1st 2020. In addition, communication studies in reproduction related domains in sexual and reproductive health and rights were included. Data extracted included study design, study population, and details of the communication intervention. Communication strategies were analysed and categorized based on existing conceptualizations of communication goals and interpersonal communication processes. A total of 138 articles were included. These reported on 128 strategies to improve interpersonal communication and were conducted in Europe and North America (n = 85), Sub-Saharan Africa (n = 12), Australia and New Zealand (n = 10), Central and Southern Asia (n = 9), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 6), Northern Africa and Western Asia (n = 4) and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (n = 2). Strategies addressed three communication goals: facilitating exchange of information (n = 97), creating a good interpersonal relationship (n = 57), and/or enabling the inclusion of women and partners in the decision making (n = 41). Two main approaches to strengthen interpersonal communication were identified: training health workers (n = 74) and using tools (n = 63). Narrative analysis of these interventions led to an update of an existing communication framework. The categorization of different forms of interpersonal communication strategy can inform the design, implementation and evaluation of communication improvement strategies. While most interventions focused on information provision, incorporating other communication goals (building a relationship, inclusion of women and partners in decision making) could further improve the experience of care for women, their partners and the families of newborns.

A Decision Aid for Postpartum Adolescent Family Planning: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Tanzania

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the effects of our postpartum Green Star family planning decision aid on the decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, and uptake of long-acting reversible contraception among pregnant adolescents in Tanzania.

METHODS

We used a facility-based pre-post quasi-experimental design. The intervention arm received routine family planning counseling and the decision aid. The control received only routine family planning counseling. The primary outcome was the change in decisional conflict measured using the validated decision conflict scale (DCS). The secondary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, and contraception uptake.

RESULTS

We recruited 66 pregnant adolescents, and 62 completed this study. The intervention group had a lower mean score difference in the DCS than in the control (intervention: -24.7 vs. control: -11.6, p < 0.001). The mean score difference in knowledge was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control (intervention: 4.53 vs. control: 2.0, p < 0.001). The mean score of satisfaction was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control (intervention: 100 vs. control: 55.8, p < 0.001). Contraceptive uptake was significantly higher in the intervention [29 (45.3%)] than in the control [13 (20.3%)] (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid demonstrated positive applicability and affordability for pregnant adolescents in Tanzania.

The effects of an online decision aid to support the reproductive decision-making process of genetically at risk couples-A pilot study

Couples at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring may experience doubts about their reproductive options. This study examines the effects of an online decision aid (DA) on the (joint) reproductive decision-making process of couples (not pregnant at time of inclusion) at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring. The primary outcome is decisional conflict, and secondary outcomes are knowledge, realistic expectations, deliberation, joint informed decision-making, and decisional self-efficacy. These outcomes were measured with a pretest-posttest design: before use (T0), after use (T1), and 2 weeks after use (T2) of the decision aid (DA). Usability of the DA was assessed at T1. Paired sample t-tests were used to compute differences between baseline and subsequent measurements. The comparisons of T0-T1 and T0-T2 indicate a significant reduction in mean decisional conflict scores with stronger effects for participants with high baseline decisional conflict scores. Furthermore, use of the DA led to increased knowledge, improved realistic expectations, and increased levels of deliberation, with higher increase in participants with low baseline scores. Decision self-efficacy only improved for participants with lower baseline scores. Participants indicated that the information in the DA was comprehensible and clearly organized. These first results indicate that this online DA is an appropriate tool to support couples at risk of transmitting a genetic disease and a desire to have (a) child(ren) in their reproductive decision-making process.

Could a decision support tool be the key to supporting choice for women regarding place of birth?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of using an innovative decision aid, MyBirthplace, to facilitate shared decision-making regarding place of birth.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental study comparing pre-test and post-test responses from participants who had access to the intervention.

SETTING

A large urban hospital in the south of England.

PARTICIPANTS

All pregnant women who accessed maternity care between April and December 2016.

INTERVENTION

A decision aid (MyBirthplace) designed to provide information and support regarding place of birth. The digital tool (available in both an app and web-based version) was used to facilitate discuss between the women and her midwife at the booking visit.

MEASUREMENTS

Women's stage of decision making as measured by the Stage of Decision Making Scale. A questionnaire was administered before and after using MyBirthplace at booking, and again at 28 weeks gestation.

FINDINGS

Nearly half the women (42.1%) had already decided where they wanted to give birth before the booking appointment, but a third (34.3%) had not yet begun to think about their choices. The introduction of the decision aid during the booking visit was associated with a significant increase in the stage of decision making suggesting that women had greater certainty in their decision P< 0.0001 [SD 1.077]. Women who accessed MyBirthplace had lower decisional conflict after the booking appointment than those women that did not access the decision aid (35.5% compared with 22.0%) but this difference was not statistically significant.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids, as a standard part of practice, have the potential to ensure women are informed of their options and encourage shared decision making about place of birth. Women were more confident with their decision following the booking appointment and by 28 weeks; however, further research is needed to identify the role that the decision aid played in building this confidence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The introduction of a decision aid, Mybirthplace, within the hospital impacted early discussions between the woman and the midwife and appeared to benefit women's decision making regarding place of birth. Further studies of midwives' use of innovative technologies and their implementation are required.

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

BACKGROUND

The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) systematically evaluates the understandability and actionability of patient education materials. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of PEMAT and verify its reliability and validity.

METHODS

After assessing content validation, experts scored healthcare-related leaflets and videos according to PEMAT to verify inter-rater reliability. In validation testing with laypeople, the high-scoring material group (n = 800) was presented with materials that received high ratings on PEMAT, and the low-scoring material group (n = 799) with materials that received low ratings. Both groups responded to the understandability and actionability of the materials and perceived self-efficacy for the recommended actions.

RESULTS

The Japanese version of PEMAT showed strong inter-rater reliability (PEMAT-P: % agreement = 87.3, Gwet's AC1 = 0.83. PEMAT-A/V: % agreement = 85.7, Gwet's AC1 = 0.80). The high-scoring material group had significantly higher scores for understandability and actionability than the low-scoring material group (PEMAT-P: understandability 6.53 vs. 5.96, p < 0.001; actionability 6.04 vs. 5.49, p < 0.001; PEMAT-A/V: understandability 7.65 vs. 6.76, p < 0.001; actionability 7.40 vs. 6.36, p < 0.001). Perceived self-efficacy increased more in the high-scoring material group than in the low-scoring material group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that materials rated highly on Japanese version of PEMAT were also easy for laypeople to understand and action.

The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie’s Mission—the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie’s Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

Informed choice and attitudes regarding a genomic test to predict risk of colorectal cancer in general practice

OBJECTIVE

A genomic test to predict personal risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) that targets screening and could be feasibly implemented in primary care. We explored informed decision-making and attitudes towards genomic testing in this setting.

METHODS

A CRC genomic test was offered to 150 general practice patients with brief discussion of its implications. We measured informed choice about the test, consisting knowledge, attitudes and test uptake. Sixteen purposively-sampled participants were interviewed.

RESULTS

Of 150, 142 (95%) completed the informed choice measure and of 27 invited, 16 (59%) completed an interview. 73% made an informed choice about the test. Interviews revealed that participants with inadequate knowledge on the informed choice scale still understood the gist of the test. While positive attitudes were most prevalent, some had concerns, and many were indifferent to the test. Positive attitudes included: that risk information could facilitate risk reduction; negative attitudes included: that risk results could cause worry and be used for insurance discrimination; indifferent attitudes included: that the test seemed benign and it was easy to do.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study adds to the evidence that genomic tests for CRC risk do not pose significant concern to patients in community settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As genomic tests become more prevalent, this study's findings can be used to facilitate informed decision-making and ensure equitable access.

Development and use of the Australian reproductive genetic carrier screening decision aid

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) may be offered to all individuals and couples, regardless of family history or ethnicity. "Mackenzie's Mission" (MM) is an Australian RGCS pilot study, evaluating the offer of couple-based screening for ~1300 genes associated with around 750 autosomal and X-linked recessive childhood-onset conditions. Each member of the couple makes an individual decision about RGCS and provides consent. We developed a decision aid (RGCS-DA) to support informed decision-making in MM, suitable for couples who were either non-pregnant or in early pregnancy. A Delphi approach invited experts to review values statements related to various concepts of RGCS. Three review rounds were completed, seeking consensus for relevance and clarity of statements, incorporating recommended modifications in subsequent iterations. The final RGCS-DA contains 14 statements that achieved Delphi consensus plus the attitude scale of the measure of informed choice. This was then evaluated in cognitive talk aloud interviews with potential users to assess face and content validity. Minimal wording changes were required at this stage. After this process, the RGCS-DA was piloted with 15 couples participating in MM who were then interviewed about their decision-making. The RGCS-DA prompted discussion within couples and facilitated in depth consideration of screening. There was reassurance when values aligned and a sense of shared decision-making within the couple. This RGCS-DA may become a very useful tool in supporting couples' decision making and contribute to RGCS being feasible for scaled-up implementation.

Interventions aiming to improve informed decision on prenatal screening and testing: A scoping review of the literature

The aim of this scoping review was to explore interventions and their effect in facilitating decision making on prenatal screening and testing among pregnant women. This review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Methods Manual for scoping reviews. Studies published 2000-2019 that consist of interventions to facilitate pregnant women's decision making in prenatal screening and testing were specifically reviewed. A total of 27 studies are included in this scoping review. In these studies, various methods, including face-to-face individual or group interventions, e-Health interventions, video-based interventions, written educational materials, and decision aid interventions, were developed and tested for their effectiveness in facilitating informed decision making on prenatal screening and testing. While these methods appeared to be effective, further studies involving diverse populations are needed to integrate them into practice. Genetic counselors and healthcare providers working with individuals who are referred for genetic education and counseling need to work collaboratively to facilitate informed decisions on prenatal screening of women and/or their partners.

Decision aids for prenatal testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To analyse the effect of decision aids (DAs) used by pregnant women on prenatal testing decisions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA RESOURCES

We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Library ending October 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Papers were selected for analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. The result is knowledge, decision conflict, anxiety and other secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Comprehensive analysis showed that DAs could significantly improve knowledge and decision-making satisfaction, reduce decision conflict, increase the proportion of women who make informed choice and had no influence on anxiety and decision regret.

CONCLUSIONS

This article systematically reviewed the positive effect of DAs on the decision-making of pregnant women facing prenatal testing. In the future, nurses should be encouraged to develop DAs in accordance with strict standards and apply them to pregnant women of different backgrounds.

IMPACT

There is a growing consensus that health care should be patient-centred, and the values and preferences of pregnant women who undergo prenatal testing need to be incorporated into the clinical decision-making process. This review reports that the use of DAs can increase pregnant women's chances of participating in prenatal testing decisions and may improve the quality of their decision-making. It also provides information on the role and practice of nurses in promoting evidence-based prenatal testing for DAs.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Influence of Prenatal Counseling on the Attitudes and Preferences Toward Invasive Prenatal Testing Among Women in Their First Trimester of Pregnancy (INVASIVE)

Objective

To assess the impact of prenatal genetic counseling on the attitudes and preferences toward invasive testing in first-trimester pregnant women.

Methods

This is a randomized open-label study, of pregnant women undergoing first trimester combined screening for aneuploidies. Women were divided into the experimental or control groups in a 1:1 design. The intervention consisted of 15-min extra counseling about prenatal screening and diagnosis. The main outcome was the desire to choose an invasive testing as their first prenatal testing option which was measured as absolute risk.

Results

After excluding those with incomplete data, 75 women remained in the experimental group and 75 as controls. Women receiving counseling were 32% more likely to choose an invasive prenatal testing as their first-line option after extra 15-min extensive counseling, reducing the first-trimester combined screening by 20% and the cell-free DNA by 12%. If given the opportunity, 59% of the women would like to be able to choose the prenatal test that suits their needs.

Conclusion

Women given an extensive prenatal counseling are more likely to choose an invasive testing as their first-line test in spite of the concerning risks.

Clinical Trial Registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04119349.

Use of Decision Support Tools to Empower Pregnant Women: Systematic Review

Background

Women face many health-related decisions during pregnancy. Digitalization, new technology, and a greater focus on empowering patients have driven the development of patient-centered decision support tools.

Objective

This systematic review provides an overview of studies investigating the effect of patient-centered decision support tools for pregnant women.

Methods

We searched 5 online databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus, from inception to December 1, 2019. Two independent researchers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts against the inclusion criteria. All studies investigating the effect of patient-centered decision support tools for health-related issues among pregnant women were included. Study characteristics and results were extracted using the review management tool Rayyan and analyzed according to topic, type of decision support tools, control group, outcome measurements, and results.

Results

The 25 eligible studies covered a range of health topics, including prenatal screening (n=10), gestational diabetes and weight gain (n=7), lifestyle (n=3), blood pressure and preeclampsia (n=2), depression (n=1), asthma (n=1), and psychological well-being (n=1). In general, the use of decision support tools increased women's knowledge, and recording symptoms enhanced satisfaction with maternity care.

Conclusions

The opportunities created by digitalization and technology should be used to develop innovative patient-centered decision support tools tailored to support pregnant women. Effect on clinical outcomes should be documented.

Women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing: an explorative study within Finnish public maternity care

Objectives To explore women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing (PreST) in Finland and to evaluate a counseling service. Methods Self-completion surveys were conducted at two medical settings (screening and further testing) of PreST. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was the main measure. Different types of statistical tests were used to compare women's decisional conflict at different medical settings of PreST, and before-after pre-test counseling. Multivariable linear regressions analyzed the influences of the medical settings and other factors on women's decisional conflict. Results Compared to women in population-based screening, women in further testing (before pre-test counseling) were more likely to feel well informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), but more likely experienced uncertainty (P = 0.040). Besides medical settings, maternal age, gravidity and previous experience of fetal aneuploidy significantly influenced decisional conflict. After counseling, screen-positive women felt better informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), perceived more support (P < 0.001), and had better decision certainty (P < 0.001) than before counseling. Conclusions Medical settings influence women's decisional conflict during PreST. Individual counseling is effective in improving screen-positive women's decisional conflict. This research adds knowledge and experience on developing decision-making supports across the pathway of PreST.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Effect of health literacy interventions on pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low health literacy has been associated with worse health outcomes, but little is known about the effectiveness of health literacy interventions developed for pregnant women.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of health literacy interventions on pregnancy outcomes through a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials that assessed health literacy interventions designed to improve pregnancy outcomes were included. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094958).

FINDINGS

Of the 1512 records initially identified, 13 studies were included. Three reported on decision-aid interventions, six on face-to-face interventions and four on written interventions (including computer-based interventions or information leaflets). The primary outcomes of interest for this systematic review were knowledge (10/13 studies) and health literacy (2/13 studies) with one study not reporting either primary outcome. A significant improvement in knowledge was found across the 10 studies, however the two studies which measured health literacy only assessed health literacy at a single time-point. Secondary outcomes including health behaviours, fetal outcomes and health-service utilisation were reported in 11 studies, with inconsistent results.

DISCUSSION

Few health literacy interventions have been developed specifically for pregnant women. Although health literacy interventions have the potential to improve knowledge and pregnancy outcomes, current evidence is limited by inconsistent outcomes and measurement, and limited use of health literacy theory to inform intervention design and content. Few studies directly measured health literacy.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to properly assess the effect of health literacy interventions on pregnancy outcomes. This research should include consideration of health literacy theory in the development of the interventions.

Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making in pregnancy, labour, and birth is vital to woman-centred care and despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of shared decision making in pregnancy care, practical uptake has been slow.

DESIGN AND AIM

This scoping review aimed to identify and describe effective and appropriate shared decision aids designed to be provided to women in the antenatal period to assist them in making informed decisions for both pregnancy and birth. Two questions guided the enquiry: (i) what shared decision aids for pregnancy and perinatal care are of appropriate quality and feasibility for application in Australia? (ii) which of these decision aids have been shown to be effective and appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally diverse women, or those with low literacy?

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to conduct the review. Five key databases and selected grey literature sources were examined. English language evidence from Australia, Europe, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America produced from 2009 was eligible for inclusion, checked against apriori inclusion criteria, and assessed for quality and usability using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

RESULTS

From a total of 5,209 search results, 35 sources of evidence reporting on 27 decision aids were included following title/abstract and full-text review. Most of the decision aids concerned decisions around birth (52%, n = 14) or antenatal screening 37% (n = 10). The quality of the decision aids was moderate to high, with most communicating risks, benefits, and choice pathways via a mix of Likert-style scales, quizzes, and pictures or graphs. Use of decision aids resulted in significant reductions in decisional conflict and increased knowledge. The format of decision aids appeared to have no effect on these outcomes, indicating that paper-based are as effective as video- or audio-based decision aids. Eleven decision aids were suitable for low literacy or low health literacy women, and six were either developed for culturally diverse groups or have been translated into other languages. No decision aids found were specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The 27 decision aids are readily adoptable into westernised healthcare settings and can be used by midwives or multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with women. Decision aids are designed to support women, and families to arrive at informed choices and supplement the decision-making process rather than to replace consumer-healthcare professional interaction. If given before an appointment, high quality decision aids can increase a woman's familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge.

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.

Improving women's knowledge about prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome - development and acceptability of a low literacy decision aid

Background

Access to information about prenatal screening is important particularly in light of new techniques such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). This study aimed to develop and examine the acceptability of a low literacy decision aid (DA) about Down syndrome screening among pregnant women with varying education levels and GPs.

Methods

We developed a DA booklet providing information about first-trimester combined testing, maternal serum screening, and NIPT. GPs and women participated in a telephone interview to examine the acceptability of the DA and measure screening knowledge before and after reading the DA. The knowledge measure was designed to assess whether women had understood the gist of the information presented in the decision aid. It comprised conceptual questions (e.g. screening tells you the chance of having a baby with Down syndrome) and numeric questions (e.g. the accuracy of different screening tests).

Results

Twenty-nine women and 18 GPs participated. Regardless of education level, most women found the booklet ‘very’ clearly presented (n = 22, 76%), and ‘very’ informative (n = 23, 80%). Overall, women’s conceptual and numeric knowledge improved after exposure to the DA, from 4% having adequate knowledge to 69%. Women’s knowledge of NIPT also improved after receiving the decision aid, irrespective of education. Most GPs found it ‘very’ clearly presented (n = 13, 72%), and that it would ‘very much’ facilitate decision-making (n = 16, 89%).

Conclusions

The DA was found to be acceptable to women as well as GPs. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of the decision aid compared to standard information is an important next step. Strategies are needed on how to implement the tool in practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2135-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Visual Decision Aids in Physician-Patient Communication: A Pilot Investigation

INTRODUCTION

A risk calculator paired with a personalized decision aid (RC&DA) may foster shared decision-making in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of using an RC&DA with patients in a primary care outpatient clinic and patients' experiences regarding communication and decision-making.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted with 15 patients of 3 primary care physicians at a clinic within a tertiary medical center. An atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator was used to generate a personalized RC&DA that displayed absolute 10-year risk information as an icon array graphic. Patient perceptions of utility of the RC&DA, preferences for decision-making, and uncertainty with risk reduction decisions were measured with a semi-structured interview.

RESULTS

Patients reported that the RC&DA was easy to understand and knowledge gained was useful to modify their ASCVD risk. Patients used the RC&DA to make decisions and reported low uncertainty with those decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of, and positive patient experiences related to using, an RC&DA to facilitate shared decision-making between physicians and patients in an outpatient primary care setting.

Pregnant women's views on how to promote the use of a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening: a theory-informed qualitative study

Background

For pregnant women and their partners, the decision to undergo Down syndrome prenatal screening is difficult. Patient decision aids (PtDA) can help them make an informed decision. We aimed to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that would be useful in an intervention to promote the use of a PtDA for Down syndrome prenatal screening, and to identify which of these BCTs pregnant women found relevant and acceptable.

Methods

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study. First, a group of experts from diverse professions, disciplines and backgrounds (eg. medicine, engineering, implementation science, community and public health, shared decision making) identified relevant BCTs. Then we recruited pregnant women consulting for prenatal care in three clinical sites: a family medicine group, a birthing centre (midwives) and a hospital obstetrics department in Quebec City, Canada. To be eligible, participants had to be at least 18 years old, having recently given birth or at least 16 weeks pregnant with a low-risk pregnancy, and have already decided about prenatal screening. We conducted three focus groups and asked questions about the relevance and acceptability of the BCTs. We analysed verbatim transcripts and reduced the BCTs to those the women found most relevant and acceptable.

Results

Our group of experts identified 25 relevant BCTs relating to information, support, consequences, others’ approval, learning, reward, environmental change and mode of delivery. Fifteen women participated in the study with a mean age of 27 years. Of these, 67% (n = 10) were pregnant for the first time, 20% (n = 3) had difficulty making the decision to take the test, and 73% had made the decision with their partner. Of the 25 BCTs identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel, the women found the following 10 to be most acceptable and relevant: goal setting (behaviour), goal setting (results), problem solving, action plan, social support (general), social support (practical), restructuring the physical environment, prompts/cues, credible sources and modelling or demonstration of the behaviour.

Conclusions

An intervention to promote PtDA use among pregnant women for Down syndrome prenatal screening should incorporate the 10 BCTs identified.

Informed decision making in the context of childhood immunization

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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.

A protocol for whole-exome sequencing in newborns with congenital deafness: a prospective population-based cohort

INTRODUCTION

The aetiology of congenital hearing loss is heterogeneous, and in many infants a genetic cause is suspected. Parents face a diagnostic odyssey when searching for a cause of their infant's hearing loss. Through the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, a prospective cohort of infants will be offered whole-exome sequencing (WES) with targeted analysis in conjunction with chromosome microarray to determine the genetic causes of congenital hearing loss. Parents will also be offered the opportunity to receive additional results from their infant's WES.

METHODS

Eligible infants will be identified through the Victorian Infant Hearing Screening Program and offered an appointment in a paediatrician-run clinic, a genetics assessment and enrolment in the Victorian Childhood Hearing Impairment Longitudinal Databank. If parents consent to WES, genes causing deafness will be analysed and they can choose to obtain additional findings. For the additional results component, a modified laboratory protocol has been designed for reporting of results in the absence of a relevant phenotype. Parents' experience of being offered WES will be evaluated using surveys.

DISCUSSION

This project will provide descriptive analysis of the genetic aetiology of congenital hearing loss in this cohort and may provide data on genotype-phenotype correlations. Additionally, choices regarding additional findings will be analysed. Participants will represent a diverse cross section of the population, increasing the ability to generalise results beyond the study group. Evaluation surveys will allow analysis of preferences around counselling, usefulness of a decision aid and adequacy of information provision.

Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections

The rapid clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, a non-invasive method of prenatal genetic screening, has outpaced research on its social and ethical implications. This study is the first to compare the ethical and practical views of Spanish- and English-speaking pregnant women in the United States about cfDNA screening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse Spanish- and English-speaking women who had received prenatal care at a large academic medical center. Of the 24 interviewees, ten were Latinas who were interviewed in Spanish; English-language interviews were conducted with seven non-Hispanic Asian and seven non-Hispanic White women. Participants held positive opinions concerning the accuracy of cfDNA screening and often noted that it would enhance preparedness. Participants also expressed concerns about the possibility of inaccurate results and the potentially negative effects of cfDNA screening on the experience of pregnancy. Differences emerged between Spanish and English speakers in their portrayals of their relationships with prenatal health care providers, the extent to which they questioned providers' advice, their ethical concerns, and their informational needs. We emphasize the importance of customizing prenatal test counseling to the needs of the individual patient, providing educationally appropriate counseling and literature, and mitigating potential language barriers.

'It made you think twice' - an interview study of women's perception of a web-based decision aid concerning screening and diagnostic testing for fetal anomalies

Background

Enabling women to make informed decisions is a key objective in the guidelines governing prenatal screening and diagnostics. Despite efforts to provide information, research shows that women’s choice of prenatal screening is often not based on informed decisions. The aim of this study was to investigate pregnant women’s perceptions of the use of an interactive web-based DA, developed to initiate a process of reflection and deliberate decision-making concerning screening and testing for fetal anomalies.

Methods

A qualitative study was applied and individual interviews were conducted. Seventeen pregnant women attending antenatal healthcare in Uppsala County, Sweden, who had access to the decision aid were interviewed. Eleven opted to use the decision aid and six did not. Data were analysed by systematic text condensation.

Results

Women appreciated the decision aid, as it was easily accessible; moreover, they emphasised the importance of a reliable source. It helped them to clarify their own standpoints and engaged their partner in the decision-making process. Women described the decision aid as enhancing their awareness that participating in prenatal screening and diagnostics was a conscious choice. Those who chose not to use the web-based decision aid when offered reported that they already had sufficient knowledge.

Conclusions

The decision aid was able to initiate a process of deliberate decision-making in pregnant women as a result of their interaction with the tool. Access to a web-based decision aid tool can be valuable to expectant parents in making quality decisions regarding screening for fetal anomalies.

Socioeconomic Differences in Informed Decisions About Down Syndrome Screening: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Supporting pregnant women to make informed choices about Down syndrome screening is widely endorsed. We reviewed the literature on: (a) the association between socioeconomic position and informed choices and decision-making about Down syndrome screening, and (b) the possible mediating variables (e.g., health literacy, numeracy skills, behavioral and communication variables) that might explain the relationship. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1999 to September 2014. The methodological quality of studies was determined by predefined criteria regarding the research aims, study design, study population and setting, measurement tools, and statistical analysis. A total of 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Women from lower socioeconomic groups experience greater difficulties making informed choices about Down syndrome screening compared to women from higher socioeconomic groups. Most studies focus on individual dimensions of informed decision-making rather than assessing elements in conjunction with one another. Few studies have explored why there are socioeconomic differences in women's ability to make informed screening decisions. Future work is needed to identify mediating variables in this pathway. Systematic evidence-based intervention development to improve communication, understanding, and decision-making about Down syndrome screening is needed to ensure that women have an equal opportunity to make an informed choice about screening regardless of their socioeconomic position.

The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial

Early in pregnancy women and their partners face the complex decision on whether or not to participate in prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Several studies show that the majority of pregnant women currently do not make informed decisions regarding prenatal testing. As the range of prenatal tests is expanding due to the development of new techniques such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), autonomous reproductive decision-making is increasingly challenging. In this study, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of a web-based multimedia decision aid on decision-making regarding prenatal testing. The decision aid provided both written and audiovisual information on prenatal tests currently available, that is, prenatal screening by first-trimester combined testing, NIPT and invasive diagnostic testing through chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Furthermore, it contained values clarification exercises encouraging pregnant women to reflect on the potential harms and benefits of having prenatal tests performed. The use of the decision aid improved informed decision-making regarding prenatal testing. Of pregnant women allocated to the intervention group (n=130) 82.3% made an informed choice compared with 66.4% of women in the control group (n=131), P=0.004. As the vast majority of pregnant women made decisions consistent with their attitudes towards having prenatal testing performed, this improvement in informed decision-making could be attributed mainly to an increase in decision-relevant knowledge. This study shows that the implementation of a web-based multimedia decision aid directly facilitates the ultimate goal of prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, which is enabling informed autonomous reproductive choice.

Choosing treatment and screening options congruent with values: Do decision aids help? Sub-analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To understand how well patients make value congruent decisions with and without patient decision aids (PtDAs) for screening and treatment options, and identify issues with its measurement and evaluation.

METHODS

A sub-analysis of trials included in the 2014 Cochrane Review of Decision Aids. Eligible trials measured value congruence with chosen option. Two reviewers independently screened 115 trials.

RESULTS

Among 18 included trials, 8 (44%) measured value congruence using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), 7 (39%) used heterogeneous methods, and 3 (17%) used unclear methods. Pooled results of trials that used heterogeneous measures were statistically non-significant (n=3). Results from trials that used the MMIC suggest patients are 48% more likely to make value congruent decisions when exposed to a PtDA for a screening decision (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, n=8).

CONCLUSION

Patients struggle to make value congruent decisions, but PtDAs may help. While the absolute improvement is relatively small it may be underestimated due to sample size issues, definitions, and heterogeneity of measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current approaches are inadequate to support patients making decisions that are consistent with their values. There is some evidence that PtDAs support patients with achieving values congruent decisions for screening choices.

It's complicated - Factors predicting decisional conflict in prenatal diagnostic testing

BACKGROUND

The technologies currently available to detect the presence of foetal genetic abnormalities are complex, and undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing can have wide-ranging repercussions. Before individuals can decide with certainty whether or not to take these tests, they first need to grasp the many psychosocial and clinical dimensions of prenatal genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To test a model integrating key psychosocial and clinical factors as predictors of decisional conflict in decisions about whether or not to undergo prenatal genetic testing.

METHOD

Adults (n = 457) read one of four hypothetical scenarios asking them to imagine expecting a child and considering the option of a prenatal test able to detect a genetic condition; age of condition onset (birth vs. adulthood) and its curability (no cure vs. curable) were manipulated. Participants completed measures of decisional conflict, perceived benefits from normal results, test response efficacy, condition coherence, child-related worry, perceived disagreement with the other parent's preference, motivation to comply with doctors' perceived preferences, and parity.

RESULTS

Prenatal testing decisional conflict was positively predicted by perceiving normal results as beneficial, doubting the test's reliability, lacking understanding of the genetic condition, worrying about the health of the foetus, perceiving differences of opinion from partner/spouse, wanting to follow doctors' preferences, and being childless.

DISCUSSION

These results, of growing relevance given the increasing availability of new technologies in pregnancy care, can inform communication strategies that facilitate couples' decision making.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into factors that might complicate prenatal testing decision making.

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.

Informed choice about Down syndrome screening - effect of an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an eHealth intervention (interactive website) on pregnant women's ability to make an informed choice about Down syndrome screening.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with allocation to an intervention group and a control group in a ratio of 1:1. Subsequent subgroup analysis was conducted. Participants were recruited from 5 August 2013 to 25 April 2014 at Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Inclusion criteria were: pregnant women aged ≥18 years who were invited to participate in Down syndrome screening. Exclusion criteria were: high risk of abortion, psycho-socially vulnerable women, late referral, inability to speak Danish and women declining to participate. The primary outcome was informed choice about Down syndrome screening. The Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice was used to assess whether the choice was informed or uninformed.

RESULTS

A total of 1150 participants were included in the study, of which 910 (79%) completed the questionnaire. Only a minority (30% of the women in the intervention group) actually used the website. There was no significant difference in the groups with respect to making an informed choice. The mean knowledge scores were significantly higher for those in the intervention group who used the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

An interactive website with information about Down syndrome screening had no direct effect on making an informed choice. However, the majority of the pregnant women who used the website were satisfied with the website and would recommend it to others.

Measuring patient-centered care: An updated systematic review of how studies define and report concordance between patients' preferences and medical treatments

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to examine recent advances in measuring value concordance and to highlight best practices.

METHODS

The paper updates a prior systematic review. A systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2012 identified articles that reported a relationship between patients' preferences concerning health outcomes and/or medical treatments, and treatment (intended or actual). Relevant articles were independently abstracted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The search identified 3635 unique citations, the full text of 187 articles was examined, and 63 articles covering 61 studies were included, nearly a third more articles than identified in the original review. There were 72 different value concordance calculations, the majority of which were clearly reported with significance. More studies assessed knowledge, reported on the association between value concordance and knowledge, and included a decision aid compared to those in the original review.

CONCLUSION

There is increased reporting of value concordance in the literature. However, large differences exist in the way that the measure is defined and calculated. The variability makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care across studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Value concordance is a critical component of patient-centered care, and further attention is needed to establish standards for measurement and reporting.

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.

Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review

Genetic screening and health-care guidelines recommend that programmes should facilitate informed choice. It is therefore important that accurate measures of informed choice are available to evaluate such programmes. This review synthesises and appraises measures used to evaluate informed choice in population-based genetic screening programmes for reproductive risk. Databases were searched for studies offering genetic screening for the purpose of establishing reproductive risk to an adult population sample, in which aspects of informed choice were measured. Studies were included if, at a minimum, measures of uptake of screening and knowledge were used. Searches identified 1462 citations and 76 studies were reviewed in full text; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Over 20 different measures of informed choice were used. Many measures lacked adequate validity and reliability data. This systematic review will inform future evaluation of informed choice in population genetic screening programmes.

Timing the provision of a pregnancy decision-aid: temporal patterns of preference for mode of birth during pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To help identify the optimal timing for provision of pregnancy decision-aids, this paper examines temporal patterns in women's preference for mode of birth after previous cesarean, prior to a decision-aid intervention.

METHODS

Pregnant women (n=212) with one prior cesarean responded to surveys regarding their preference for elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) or trial of labor (TOL) at 12-18 weeks and again at 28 weeks gestation. Patterns of adherence or change in preference were examined.

RESULTS

Women's preferences for birth were not set in early pregnancy. There was evidence of increasing uncertainty about preferred mode of birth during the first two trimesters of pregnancy (McNemar value=4.41, p=0.04), decrease in preference for TOL (McNemar value=3.79, p=0.05) and stability in preference for ERCD (McNemar value=0.31, p=0.58). Adherence to early pregnancy choice was associated with previous birth experience, maternal country of birth, emotional state and hospital site.

CONCLUSION

Women's growing uncertainty about mode of birth prior to 28 weeks indicates potential readiness for a decision-aid earlier in pregnancy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Pregnancy decision-aids affecting mode of birth could be provided early in pregnancy to increase women's opportunity to improve knowledge, clarify personal values and reduce decision uncertainty.

A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether an interactive computer program could improve patient knowledge regarding genetic screening and diagnostic concepts.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, women 6-26 weeks' gestation were assigned to standard care with provider-based counseling or to augmented counseling with an interactive computer program. The computer-based tool conveyed information about genetic testing options. Women were administered a 23-item test of content knowledge immediately and 2-4 weeks after exposure. Test scores were compared between groups at both points using T-tests.

RESULTS

A total of 150 women were randomized equally between groups. Groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics. Women randomized to the interactive tool correctly answered a significantly greater proportion of questions than those who received standard counseling (69.4% ± 14.2% vs. 46.0% ± 15.2%, p < 0.001) on the immediate questionnaire. One hundred and twenty-three (82%) participants participated in the follow-up test. Women randomized to the tool continued to correctly answer a significantly greater proportion of questions (60.6% ± 16% vs. 49.7% ± 18.9%, p = 0.001). Education, health literacy, electronic health literacy, and other discussions with providers were not associated with a differential benefit from the educational intervention.

CONCLUSION

A patient-directed interactive computer program may help providers to convey relevant information about genetic screening and diagnostic concepts.

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 enhance informed choices among invitees of screening programmes-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making about participation has become an explicit purpose in invitations for screening programmes in western countries. An informed choice is commonly defined as based on: (i) adequate levels of knowledge of the screening and (ii) agreement between the invitee's values towards own screening participation and actual (intention to) participation.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed published studies that empirically evaluated the effects of interventions aiming at enhancing informed decision making in screening programmes targeted at the general population. We focused on prenatal screening and neonatal screening for diseases of the foetus/new-born and screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. The Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published till April 2012, using the terms 'informed choice', 'decision making' and 'mass screening' separately and in combination and terms referring to the specific screening programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 2238 titles identified, 15 studies were included, which evaluated decision aids (DAs), information leaflets, film, video, counselling and a specific screening visit for informed decision making in prenatal screening, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Most of the included studies evaluated DAs and showed improved knowledge and informed decision making. Due to the limited number of studies the results could not be synthesized.

CONCLUSION

The empirical evidence regarding interventions to improve informed decision making in screening is limited. It is unknown which strategies to enhance informed decision making are most effective, although DAs are promising. Systematic development of interventions to enhance informed choices in screening deserves priority, especially in disadvantaged groups.

Evaluation of a Mammography Screening Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older: Protocol for a Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

There is insufficient evidence to recommend mammography for women >75 years. Guidelines recommend that older women be informed of the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm, especially for women with short life expectancy. However, few older women are informed of harms of screening and many with short life expectancy are screened. Therefore, we aim to test whether a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women >75 years affects their use of mammography, particularly for women with <10 year life expectancy.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DA is a self-administered pamphlet that includes information on screening outcomes, tailored information on breast cancer risk, health, life expectancy, and competing mortality risks, and includes a values clarification exercise. We are conducting a large cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the DA with the primary care provider (PCP) as the unit of randomization to evaluate its efficacy. We plan to recruit 550 women 75-89 years from 100 PCPs to receive either the mammography DA or a pamphlet on home safety for older adults (control arm) before a visit with their PCP, depending on their PCP's randomization assignment. The primary outcome is receipt of mammography screening assessed through chart abstraction. Secondary outcomes include effect of the DA on older women's screening intentions, knowledge, and decisional conflict, and on documented discussions about mammography by their PCPs. We will recruit women from 5 Boston-based primary care practices (3 community-based internal medicine practices and 2 academic practices), and 2 North Carolina-based academic primary care practices.

DISCUSSION

It is essential that we test the DA in a large RCT to determine if it is efficacious and to substantiate the need for broad translation into clinical practice. Our DA has the potential to improve health care utilization and care in a manner dictated by patient preferences.

Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) requires evidence that PtDAs improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choice made, or decision quality. The aim of this paper is to review the theoretical and empirical evidence for PtDA effectiveness and discuss emerging practical and research issues in the measurement of effectiveness.

METHODS

This updated overview incorporates: a) an examination of the instruments used to measure five key decision-making process constructs (i.e., recognize decision, feel informed about options and outcomes, feel clear about goals and preferences, discuss goals and preferences with health care provider, and be involved in decisions) and decision quality constructs (i.e., knowledge, realistic expectations, values-choice agreement) within the 86 trials in the Cochrane review; and b) a summary of the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of PtDAs for these key constructs. Data on the constructs and instruments used were extracted independently by two authors from the 86 trials and any disagreements were resolved by discussion, with adjudication by a third party where required.

RESULTS

The 86 studies provide considerable evidence that PtDAs improve the decision-making process and decision quality. A majority of the studies (76/86; 88%) measured at least one of the key decision-making process or decision quality constructs. Seventeen different measurement instruments were used to measure decision-making process constructs, but no single instrument covered all five constructs. The Decisional Conflict Scale was most commonly used (n = 47), followed by the Control Preference Scale (n = 9). Many studies reported one or more constructs of decision quality, including knowledge (n = 59), realistic expectation of risks and benefits (n = 21), and values-choice agreement (n = 13). There was considerable variability in how values-choice agreement was defined and determined. No study reported on all key decision-making process and decision quality constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of PtDA effectiveness in improving the quality of the decision-making process and decision quality is strong and growing. There is not, however, consensus or standardization of measurement for either the decision-making process or decision quality. Additional work is needed to develop and evaluate measurement instruments and further explore theoretical issues to advance future research on PtDA effectiveness.

Factors associated with the quality of patients' surgical decisions for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making requires informing patients and ensuring that treatment decisions reflect their goals. It is not clear to what extent this happens for patients considering total joint replacement (TJR) for hip or knee osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of osteoarthritis patients at 4 sites, who made a decision about TJR. The survey measured knowledge and goals, the decision making process, decision confidence, and decision regret. Decision quality was defined as the percentage of patients who had high knowledge scores and received treatments that matched their goals. Multivariable regression models examined factors associated with knowledge and decision quality.

RESULTS

There were 382 patients who participated (78.6% response rate). Mean knowledge score was 61% (SD 20.7%). In multivariate linear regression, higher education, having TJR, and site were associated with higher knowledge. Many patients (73%) received treatments that matched their goals. Thirty-one percent of patients met our definition for high decision quality. Higher decision making process scores, higher quality of life scores, and site were associated with higher decision quality. Patients who had high decision quality had less regret (73.1% vs 58.5%, p = 0.007) and greater confidence (9.0 [SD 1.6] vs 8.2 [SD 2.3] out of 10, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of patients who recently made a decision about osteoarthritis treatment met both criteria for a high quality decision. Controlling for treatment, patients reporting more involvement in the decision making process, higher quality of life, and being seen at a site that uses decision aids were associated with higher decision quality.

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.