Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

A Randomized Pilot Trial of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) with Their Children About Their Genetic Origins

INTRODUCTION

Parents who use donated gametes or embryos to form their families struggle with telling their children about their genetic origins. We developed the Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) to support parents in disclosure to their children and an eBook attention control.

METHOD

A randomized parallel, two-group, attention-controlled clinical pilot trial was conducted online during COVID-19. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects among parents with children aged 1-16 years were examined.

RESULTS

Over 10 months, our target of 75 parents were enrolled (85% of eligible [95% confidence interval (CI), 76% to 91%]), and 68% (95% CI: 57% to 78%) were retained at 12 weeks. At 4 and 12 weeks, positive trends were found for parental disclosure, telling confidence, and anxiety compared with attention controls.

DISCUSSION

The study protocol is feasible, and the TELL Tool is acceptable to parents and demonstrates a positive effect on parents' ability to tell their children. The results support the implementation of a large efficacy trial.

Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF.

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge.

RESULTS

13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I2=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I2=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218025.

Supporting shared decision-making in medicines use with people living with dementia and their carers

Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medicines are common among people living with dementia and pose considerable health risks. One way of addressing these issues is by involving the person and their carer in shared decision-making. This article discusses some of the issues related to polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing in people living with dementia and examines the concept of shared decision-making in this context. The author details some practical aids that nurses and other healthcare professionals can use to engage people living with dementia and their carers in shared decision-making about medicines use.

Evaluation of a French adaptation of a community-based advance serious illness planning decision aid

Objective

The Plan Well Guide™ (PWG) is a decision aid that empowers lay persons to better understand different types of care and prepares them, and their substitute decision-makers, to express both their authentic values and informed treatment preferences in anticipation of serious illness. We aimed to determine the acceptability of the newly translated French PWG and to evaluate decisional readiness and decisional conflict following its use by lay people.

Methods

This is an acceptability and exploratory outcomes evaluation.Participants were requested to read and complete the French PWG and to engage in an online interview. We used the Acceptability Scale to determine the acceptability and the Preparation for Decision-making Scale and decisional conflict Scale to evaluate decisional readiness.

Results

Forty-two (42) people participated. The average score on the Acceptability Scale was 18.1 (scale range: 4-20 [high-better]) and 26.6 on the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale (scale range: 6-30 [high-better]). A significant number of respondents reported needing more support to help them make better decisions.

Conclusion

The French PWG has been deemed acceptable and relevant for lay people not currently facing clinical decisions.

Innovation

The Plan Well Guide is innovative as it is the first decision aid empowering lay people for advance serious illness planning.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Development of the Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool): A digital decision aid intervention about children's origins from donated gametes or embryos

Objective

This study aimed to create and develop a well-designed, theoretically driven, evidence-based, digital, decision Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) prototype.

Methods

This developmental study used an inclusive, systematic, and iterative process to formulate a prototype TELL Tool: the first digital decision aid for parents who have children 1 to 16 years of age and used donated gametes or embryos to establish their families. Recommendations from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration and from experts in decision aid development, digital health interventions, design thinking, and instructional design guided the process.

Results

The extensive developmental process incorporated researchers, clinicians, parents, children, and other stakeholders, including donor-conceived adults. We determined the scope and target audience of the decision aid and formed a steering group. During design work, we used the decision-making process model as the guiding framework for selecting content. Parents' views and decisional needs were incorporated into the prototype through empirical research and review, appraisal, and synthesis of the literature. Clinicians' perspectives and insights were also incorporated. We used the experiential learning theory to guide the delivery of the content through a digital distribution plan. Following creation of initial content, including storyboards and scripts, an early prototype was redrafted and redesigned based on feedback from the steering group. A final TELL Tool prototype was then developed for alpha testing.

Conclusions

Detailing our early developmental processes provides transparency that can benefit the donor-conceived community as well as clinicians and researchers, especially those designing digital decision aids. Future research to evaluate the efficacy of the TELL Tool is planned.

Rethinking Decision Quality: Measures, Meaning, and Bioethics

Studies of patient decision-making use many different measures to evaluate the quality of decisions and the decision-making process, partly to determine whether the ethical goals of informed consent, patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have been achieved. We describe these measures, grouped under three main approaches, and review their limitations, leading to three conclusions. First, no measure or combination of measures can provide a complete assessment of decision quality. Second, the quality of a decision is best characterized vaguely, for instance as "good," "satisfactory," or "poor," and these categorizations depend on qualitative judgments that go beyond quantitative measures. Third, bioethicists should focus on identifying and addressing poor or problematic decisions, rather than trying to incrementally increase decision quality, quantified by a measure. Decision-quality measures can be useful in research and in advancing important goals of bioethics, as long as the challenges of defining and measuring decision quality are recognized.

Alpha Test of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an alpha test of the prototype of a digital decision aid to help parents disclose donor conception to their children, the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool).

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods design.

SETTING

Virtual interviews in places convenient to the participants.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposeful sample (N = 16) of nine gamete-donor and embryo-recipient parents and eight clinicians, as one parent was also a clinician.

METHODS

We conducted cognitive interviews to explore participants' perceptions about the TELL Tool prototype and observe patterns of use. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (i.e., usability, comprehensibility, and acceptability) guided the development of the qualitative interview guide and directed the qualitative analysis. We also collected data about participants' perceptions and ratings of the helpfulness of each of the prototype's webpages regarding parents' decision making about disclosure. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the helpfulness ratings before we merged the two data sets to optimize understanding.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the TELL Tool was a helpful digital decision aid to help parents tell their children how they were conceived. Most (93.7%) webpage rating scores indicated that the content was very helpful or helpful. The participants identified content and technical areas that needed refinement and provided specific recommendations such as adding concise instructions (usability), tailoring adolescent language (comprehensibility), and softening verbiage (acceptability).

CONCLUSION

Alpha testing guided by the International Patient Decision Aid standards was an essential step in refining and improving the TELL Tool prototype before beta testing.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.

METHODS

In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.

RESULTS

From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Shared Decision-Making Is Associated with Better Outcomes in Patients with Knee But Not Hip Osteoarthritis: The DECIDE-OA Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend shared surgical decision-making, yet it is unclear whether shared decision-making improves health outcomes in patients who are considering knee and hip replacement. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether patients who made high-quality, informed, patient-centered (IPC) decisions had better health outcomes, higher satisfaction, and less decision regret compared with those who made lower-quality decisions.

METHODS

A multisite, randomized study of 2 decision aids for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis was utilized to collect data on decision-making and health outcomes at 2 time points: shortly after the initial surgical evaluation and about 6 months after treatment. We calculated the percentage of patients who made an IPC decision and examined the a priori hypotheses that IPC decisions would be associated with better health outcomes, satisfaction, and less regret at 6 months. Linear and logistic regression models were utilized to examine the relationships.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 854 patients with a mean age of 65 years (standard deviation, 9 years), of whom 58% were female, 93% were White non-Hispanic, 67% had knee (compared with hip) osteoarthritis, and 62% underwent operative treatment within 6 months of the initial evaluation. The majority of patients (68%) made IPC decisions. The IPC group had significantly larger gains in quality of life (mean difference in EuroQol-5 Dimension, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.07; p < 0.001) compared with the non-IPC group. For knee patients, the IPC group also had significantly better Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (mean difference, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.3; p = 0.004), higher satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3; p = 0.003), much better pain relief (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; p = 0.002), and were more likely to have no decision regret (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.1; p = 0.003). For hip patients, IPC decisions were not associated with better Harris hip scores or satisfaction and were associated with more regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher-quality decisions predicted small improvements in health outcomes, as well as greater satisfaction and less regret for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but not for patients with hip osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins

Objective

To gain an in-depth understanding of parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins.

Design

Qualitative, descriptive.

Setting

Families' homes.

Patients

Gamete or embryo donation recipient parents living in the United States and who told their children, from birth to 16 years, about their genetic origins.

Interventions

Individual semistructured (n = 12) or dyadic (n = 2) parent interviews.

Main Outcome Measures

Directed qualitative content analysis.

Results

Fourteen families that comprised 16 gamete or embryo donation recipient parents and represented 24 donor-conceived children between the ages of 4 months and 16 years participated in the study. Single parents (n = 3) and both parents in most two-parent families (n = 9) led the initial telling conversations. Parents recounted personal short stories using language that was both developmentally and medically appropriate. Multiple strategies, including children's books, were used by parents to aid them in their telling. The oldest donor-conceived children in each family were first informed of their genetic origins at birth (n = 10 families) or at 6 months (n = 1 family; "practice runs") or from 3.5 to 12 years (n = 3 families). The telling conversations took place during routine family activities that naturally brought parents and children in close proximity, usually in the home.

Conclusions

Awareness of the nuances of parents' telling conversations with their children through the age of 16 years can help guide clinical counseling and the development of tools to aid parents in their telling conversations.

Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation.

RESULTS

Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information."

CONCLUSIONS

Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Patients' and Providers' Needs and Preferences When Considering Fertility Preservation Before Cancer Treatment: Decision-Making Needs Assessment

BACKGROUND

As cancer treatments continue to improve, it is increasingly important that women of reproductive age have an opportunity to decide whether they want to undergo fertility preservation treatments to try to protect their ability to have a child after cancer. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that providers offer fertility counseling to all young women with cancer; however, as few as 12% of women recall discussing fertility preservation. The long-term goal of this program is to develop an interactive web-based patient decision aid to improve awareness, access, knowledge, and decision making for all young women with cancer. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration recommends a formal decision-making needs assessment to inform and guide the design of understandable, meaningful, and usable patient decision aid interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess providers' and survivors' fertility preservation decision-making experiences, unmet needs, and initial design preferences to inform the development of a web-based patient decision aid.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews and an ad hoc focus group assessed current decision-making experiences, unmet needs, and recommendations for a patient decision aid. Two researchers coded and analyzed the transcripts using NVivo (QSR International). A stakeholder advisory panel guided the study and interpretation of results.

RESULTS

A total of 51 participants participated in 46 interviews (18 providers and 28 survivors) and 1 ad hoc focus group (7 survivors). The primary themes included the importance of fertility decisions for survivorship, the existence of significant but potentially modifiable barriers to optimal decision making, and a strong support for developing a carefully designed patient decision aid website. Providers reported needing an intervention that could quickly raise awareness and facilitate timely referrals. Survivors reported needing understandable information and help with managing uncertainty, costs, and pressures. Design recommendations included providing tailored information (eg, by age and cancer type), optional interactive features, and multimedia delivery at multiple time points, preferably outside the consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision making about fertility preservation is an important step in providing high-quality comprehensive cancer care and a priority for many survivors' optimal quality of life. Decision support interventions are needed to address gaps in care and help women quickly navigate toward an informed, values-congruent decision. Survivors and providers support developing a patient decision aid website to make information directly available to women outside of the consultation and to provide self-tailored content according to women's clinical characteristics and their information-seeking and deliberative styles.

Development and Field Testing of a Long-Term Care Decision Aid Website for Older Adults: Engaging Patients and Caregivers in User-Centered Design

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Decisions about long-term care and financing can be difficult to comprehend, consider, and communicate. In a previous needs assessment, families in rural areas requested a patient-facing website; however, questions arose about the acceptability of an online tool for older adults. This study engaged older adults and family caregivers in (a) designing and refining an interactive, tailored decision aid website, and (b) field testing its utility, feasibility, and acceptability.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Based on formative work, the research team engaged families in designing and iteratively revising paper drafts, then programmed a tailored website. The field test used the ThinkAloud approach and pre-/postquestionnaires to assess participants' knowledge, decisional conflict, usage, and acceptability ratings.

RESULTS

Forty-five older adults, family members, and stakeholders codesigned and tested the decision aid, yielding four decision-making steps: Get the Facts, What Matters Most, Consider Your Resources, and Make an Action Plan. User-based design and iterative storyboarding enhanced the content, personal decision-making activities, and user-generated resources. Field-testing participants scored 83.3% correct on knowledge items and reported moderate/low decisional conflict. All (100%) were able to use the website, spent an average of 26.3 min, and provided an average 87.5% acceptability rating.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

A decision aid website can educate and support older adults and their family members in beginning a long-term care plan. Codesign and in-depth interviews improved usability, and lessons learned may guide the development of other aging decision aid websites.

New galaxies in the universe of shared decision-making and rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Implementing shared decision-making (SDM) is a top international priority to improve care for persons living with rheumatoid arthritis. Using SDM tools, such as decision aids improve patients' knowledge and support communication with their clinicians on treatment benefits and risks. Despite calls for SDM in treat-to-target, studies demonstrating effective SDM strategies in rheumatology clinical practice are scarce. Our objective was to identify recent and relevant literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found a burgeoning literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis that tackles issues of implementation. Studies have evaluated the SDM process within clinical consultations and found that uptake is suboptimal. Trials of newly developed patient decision aids follow high methodological standards, but large-scale implementation is lacking. Innovative SDM strategies, such as shared goals and preference phenotypes may improve implementation of treat-to-target approach. Research and patient engagement are standardizing measures of SDM for clinical uses.

SUMMARY

Uptake of SDM in rheumatoid arthritis holds promise in wider clinicians' and patients' awareness, availability of decision aids, and broader treat-to-target implementation strategies, such as the learning collaborative. Focused attention is needed on facilitating SDM among diverse populations and those at risk of poorer outcomes and barriers to communication.

Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a best practice for delivering high-quality, patient-centered care when there are multiple options from which to choose. A patient decision aid (PDA) to promote SDM for the treatment of adolescent severe obesity was piloted among 12-17-year-olds (n = 31) from six pediatric weight management programs within the Childhood Obesity Multi Program Analysis and Study System (COMPASS). Medical providers used a brochure that described indications, risks, and benefits of intensive lifestyle management alone versus bariatric surgery plus lifestyle. Immediately after, patients/families completed a survey. Patient/family perceptions of provider effort to promote understanding of health issues, to listen to what mattered most to them, and to include what mattered most to them in choosing next steps averaged 8.6, 8.8, and 8.7, respectively (0 = no effort, 9 = every effort). Nearly all (96%) reported knowing the risks/benefits of each treatment option and feeling clear about which risks/benefits mattered most to them. Most (93%) reported having enough support/advice to make a choice, and 89% felt sure about what the best choice was. Providers largely found the PDA to be feasible and acceptable. This pilot will guide a more rigorous study to determine the PDA's effectiveness to support decision-making for adolescent severe obesity treatment.

Pilot Study Examining Feasibility and Comparing the Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial

Background. There are many patient decision aids (DAs) available, yet there is limited evidence on comparative effectiveness of different tools. Objective. To examine feasibility of a study protocol and gather preliminary data on comparative effectiveness. Methods. Adult patients seeing a surgeon to discuss treatment for hip or knee osteoarthritis were randomized to hip and knee DAs from two vendors. Pre-visit survey included Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument, DA usage, health literacy, and quality of life (EQ-5D). Surgical status was ascertained 6 months post-visit. We examined response rates, eligibility, and compared the two DAs on amount of use, knowledge scores, and receipt of preferred treatment. Results. Overall response rate was 58/74 (78%) and did not differ by study arm. More patients in DA-A group reported reviewing all the DAs (64.5% DA-A v. 24.0% DA-B, P = 0.003). Knowledge scores were similar across arms (55.2% DA-A v. 48.8% DA-B, P = 0.4). For DA-B, knowledge scores were higher for those who reviewed all the DAs compared with those who did not (80% knowledge v. 39% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.004), while scores for DA-A did not vary by usage (62% knowledge v. 53% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.3). A similar percentage of each group received their preferred treatment (77% v. 73%, P = 0.8). Patients who were unsure about preferred treatment at baseline were more likely to have surgery in the DA-A arm compared with the DA-B arm (55% v. 20%, P = 0.1). Limitations. Small sample; patients were only surveyed pre-visit. Conclusion. Despite having different content and formats, the two DAs had similar overall effectiveness. Patients were more likely to review all of DA-A; however, patients who reviewed all of DA-B had the highest knowledge scores.

Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of strategies to promote shared decision making for hip and knee osteoarthritis (DECIDE-OA study)

INTRODUCTION

There are several different interventions available to promote shared decision making (SDM); however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of patient-directed and physician-directed decision support strategies on the quality of treatment decisions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

TRIAL DESIGN

A 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One academic medical centre, one community hospital and one orthopaedic specialty hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

The enrolment targets were 8 surgeons and 1120 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two different decision aids (DAs) stratified by site. The DAs varied in length, content and the level of detail regarding treatment options. Both DAs were available by paper or online.Surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a report detailing patients' goals and treatment preferences at the time of the visit or not. Eligible patients received their assigned DA before their visit and completed three surveys: before the visit (timepoint (T)1), 1-week postvisit (T2) and 6 months from either the visit date or surgery date for patients who underwent surgery (T3). Study staff and participating surgeons were not blinded, but the statistician conducting the analyses was blinded to the arms.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

The primary study outcome was decision quality, the percentage of patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment. Secondary outcomes included involvement in decision making, surgical rates, health outcomes, decision regret and satisfaction. A logistic regression model with the generalised estimating equations approach was used to compare rates of decision quality between the groups and account for the clustering of patients within providers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained through the institutional review board at the main site. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02729831; Pre-results.

Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.

METHODS

We searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians' satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can improve clinicians' satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians' perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs.

METHODS

An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist.

RESULTS

The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies.

CONCLUSION

The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.