Decision Aids for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Applicability across Race 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.

Sociodemographic Representativeness in a Nationwide Web-Based Survey of the View of Men on Involvement in Health Care Decision-Making: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

Background

Being able to generalize research findings to a broader population outside of the study sample is an important goal in surveys on the internet. We conducted a nationwide, cross-sectional, web-based survey with vignettes illustrating different levels of patient involvement to investigate men’s preferences regarding participation in health care decision-making. Following randomization into vignette variants, we distributed the survey among men aged 45 to 70 years through the state-authorized digital mailbox provided by the Danish authorities for secure communication with citizens.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the sociodemographic representativeness of our sample of men obtained in a nationwide web-based survey using the digital mailbox.

Methods

Response rate estimates were established, and comparisons were made between responders and nonresponders in terms of age profiles (eg, average age) and municipality-level information on sociodemographic characteristics.

Results

Among 22,288 men invited during two waves, a total of 6756 (30.31%) participants responded to the survey. In adjusted analyses, responders’ characteristics mostly resembled those of nonresponders. Response rates, however, were significantly higher in older men (odds ratio [OR] 2.83 for responses among those aged 65-70 years compared with those aged 45-49 years, 95% CI 2.58-3.11; P<.001) and in rural areas (OR 1.10 compared with urban areas, 95% CI 1.03-1.18; P=.005). Furthermore, response rates appeared lower in areas with a higher tax base (OR 0.89 in the highest tertile, 95% CI 0.81-0.98; P=.02).

Conclusions

Overall, the general population of men aged 45 to 70 years was represented very well by the responders to our web-based survey. However, the imbalances identified highlight the importance of supplementing survey findings with studies of the representativeness of other characteristics of the sample like trait and preference features, so that proper statistical corrections can be made in upcoming analyses of survey responses whenever needed.

Treatment Preferences of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Before and After Using a Web-based Decision Aid

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment preferences of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) before and after using a web-based decision aid (DA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2016 and January 2017 patients were invited to use a web-based LUTS/BPH DA. Treatment preferences (for lifestyle advices, medication or surgery) before and after DA use and responses on values clarification exercises were extracted from the DA.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-four percent (43/126) had not received any previous treatment and were eligible for (continuation of) lifestyle advices or to start medication, as initial treatment. The other 66% (83/126) did use medication and were eligible, either for continuing medication or to undergo surgery. Before being exposed to the DA, 67 patients (53%) were undecided and 59 patients (47%) indicated an initial treatment preference. Half of the patients who were initially undecided were able to indicate a preference after DA use (34/67, 51%). Of those with an initial preference, 80% (47/59) confirmed their initial preference after DA use. Five out of 7 values clarification exercises used in the DA were discriminative between final treatment preferences. In 79%, the treatment preferred after DA use matched the received treatment. Overall, healthcare providers were positive about DA feasibility.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that a LUTS/BPH DA may help patients to confirm their initial treatment preference and support them in forming a treatment preference if they did not have an initial preference.

Effectiveness of a web-based treatment decision aid for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid (DA), with values clarification exercises compared with usual care, for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2016 and January 2017, all new patients with LUTS/BPH who consulted the urologist were invited to use the DA and participate in this prospective questionnaire study. Patients who consulted the urologist between December 2015 and February 2016 served as controls. The DA was designed to support patients in making a well-informed treatment decision, corresponding with their personal preferences and values. Well-informed decision was measured by using a knowledge questionnaire. Value congruent decision was measured by the correspondence between responses on nine value statements and chosen treatment. The primary outcome, decision quality, was defined as the combination of well-informed decision and value congruent decision. Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, involvement and received role in shared decision-making, decisional regret, and treatment choice.

RESULTS

A total of 109 DA-users and 108 controls were included. DA-users were younger (68.4 vs 71.5 years; P = 0.003) and their education level was higher (P = 0.047) compared with the controls. Patients who used the DA made a well-informed and value congruent decision more often than the control group (43% vs 21%; P = 0.028). DA-users had less decisional conflict (score 33.2 vs 46.6; P = 0.003), experienced a less passive role in decision-making (22% vs 41%; P = 0.038), and reported less process regret (score 2.4 vs 2.8; P = 0.034). Furthermore, DA-users who had not used prior medication chose lifestyle advices more often than the control group (43% vs 11%; P = 0.002). Outcomes were adjusted for significantly different baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The LUTS/BPH DA seems to improve the decision quality by supporting patients in making more well-informed and value congruent treatment decisions. Therefore, further implementation of this DA into routine care is suggested.

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.

Development of a decision aid for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A four stage method using a Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a web-based decision aid (DA) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH).

METHODS

From February-September 2014 we performed a four-stage development method: 1: Two-round Delphi consensus method among urologists, 2: Identifying patients' needs and expectations, 3: Development of DA content and structure, 4: Usability testing with LUTS/BPH patients.

RESULTS

1 (N=15): Dutch urologists reached consensus on 61% of the statements concerning users' criteria, decision options, structure, and medical content. 2 (N=24): Consensus was reached in 69% on statements concerning the need for improvement of information provision, the need for DA development and that the DA should clarify patients' preferences. 3: DA development based on results from stage 1 and stage 2. 4 (N=10): Pros of the DA were clear information provision, systematic design and easy to read and re-read.

CONCLUSION

A LUTS/BPH DA containing VCEs(**) was developed in cooperation with urologists and patients following a structured 4 stage method and was stated to be well accepted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This method can be adopted for the development of DAs to support other medical decision issues.

Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Data Sources

CINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012.

Study Eligibility Criteria

We included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group.

Results

We included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective.

Conclusion

Results indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

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.

Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

Background

Effective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user’s health literacy and the PtDA’s characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:

1. a) the effects of health literacy / numeracy on selected decision-making outcomes, and b) the effects of interventions designed to mitigate the influence of lower health literacy on decision-making outcomes, and

2. the extent to which existing PtDAs a) account for health literacy, and b) are tested in lower health literacy populations.

Methods

We reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.

Results

Aim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.

Conclusion

Lower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

The providing resources to enhance African American patients' readiness to make decisions about kidney disease (PREPARED) study: protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Living related kidney transplantation (LRT) is underutilized, particularly among African Americans. The effectiveness of informational and financial interventions to enhance informed decision-making among African Americans with end stage renal disease (ESRD) and improve rates of LRT is unknown.

Methods/design

We report the protocol of the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients’ Readiness to Make Decisions about Kidney Disease (PREPARED) Study, a two-phase study utilizing qualitative and quantitative research methods to design and test the effectiveness of informational (focused on shared decision-making) and financial interventions to overcome barriers to pursuit of LRT among African American patients and their families. Study Phase I involved the evidence-based development of informational materials as well as a financial intervention to enhance African American patients’ and families’ proficiency in shared decision-making regarding LRT. In Study Phase 2, we are currently conducting a randomized controlled trial in which patients with new-onset ESRD receive 1) usual dialysis care by their nephrologists, 2) the informational intervention (educational video and handbook), or 3) the informational intervention in addition to the option of participating in a live kidney donor financial assistance program. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial will include patients’ self-reported rates of consideration of LRT (including family discussions of LRT, patient-physician discussions of LRT, and identification of a LRT donor).

Discussion

Results from the PREPARED study will provide needed evidence on ways to enhance the decision to pursue LRT among African American patients with ESRD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01439516

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment decisions in Spain: preliminary results

OBJECTIVE

This study presents ongoing research aimed at understanding the suitability and impact of various decision aids (DAs) on patients with different chronic conditions in the Spanish National Health System.

METHODS

A three-phase process was employed to develop and evaluate DAs for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and depression, including: (1) systematic reviews on the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) interventions (including DAs); (2) the development of DAs; (3) a pilot study assessing the DAs.

RESULTS

Systematic reviews carried out highlight that there are few studies assessing the effectiveness of DAs for OA, BPH, and depression. The development of DAs and their assessment currently differs for each medical condition. The DAs assessed for OA and BHP are well accepted. In a pilot study with OA patients, the DA produced a significant improvement in the decisional conflict "informed" subscale.

CONCLUSION

Research on SDM and DAs for different chronic conditions is at a very early stage in Spain. It is not possible to draw any definite conclusions about the effectiveness of DAs for clinical practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is necessary to conduct more high quality studies to evaluate the effects of DAs in the Spanish context.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in 'close call' decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.

Improving therapeutic outcomes in BPH through diagnosis, treatment and patient compliance

The percentage of men with symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) increases markedly with age. In the United States, although evidence that racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to develop BPH remains controversial, it is clear that there are generalized differences in access to healthcare for a large portion of the minority population. These differences in healthcare access could in turn influence the way minorities are treated for symptoms of BPH. Given both the sensitive nature of the disease and the variety of treatment options, communication between healthcare professionals and the patient needs to be improved for optimal care. Communication between the healthcare provider and a minority patient can be even more challenging, considering the potential differences in language, education, and culture. Improving patient education is crucial to healthcare communication and can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including visual decision aides and fine-tuning the literacy level of educational material, to most appropriately target the desired patient population. Further steps can be taken with minorities to overcome language barriers such as the use of interpreters, or promotoras in the case of the Latino population. Finally, improving the cultural competence of the healthcare provider could have profound impacts on the treatment of not only BPH but all diseases in minority populations.

Exploring the requirements for a decision aid on familial breast cancer in the UK context: a qualitative study with patients referred to a cancer genetics service

RATIONALE

Patients concerned about a family history of breast cancer can face difficult decisions about screening, prophylactic surgery and genetic testing. Decision aids can facilitate patient decision making and currently include leaflets and computerized tools. These are largely aimed at the North American market. However, no decision aids concerning familial breast cancer exist in the UK.

METHODS

Focus groups were held with 39 women over 18 years of age referred to a cancer genetics clinic, and who had been given a risk assessment for developing breast cancer. Each focus group examined three existing North American decision aids (1 paper-based and 2 CD-ROMs) and explored what a decision aid in a UK context should look like and the information it should contain.

RESULTS

There was enthusiasm for the development of decision aids that suit the local context in terms of its health care policy, in paper-based and CD-ROM formats. This paper identifies areas of agreement and disagreement in terms of both content and presentation styles, and also reports some of the suggestions received about where, when and with whom decision aids should be used. Participants suggested that decision aids would be most effective when they allowed a user-selected range of formats.

CONCLUSION

There is still significant unmet demand for information and decision support in the context of publicly funded health care. The patient perspective provides a unique insight into issues of design, style and communication.

Men's interpretations of graphical information in a videotape decision aid

OBJECTIVE

To examine men's interpretations of graphical information types viewed in a high-quality, previously tested videotape decision aid (DA). SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, DESIGN: A community-dwelling sample of men >50 years of age (N = 188) balanced by education (college/non-college) and race (Black/White) were interviewed just following their viewing of a videotape DA. A descriptive study design was used to examine men's interpretations of a representative sample of the types of graphs that were shown in the benign prostatic hyperplasia videotape DA.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Men provided their interpretation of graphs information presented in three formats that varied in complexity: pictograph, line and horizontal bar graph. Audiotape transcripts of men's responses were coded for meaning and content-related interpretation statements.

RESULTS

Men provided both meaning and content-focused interpretations of the graphs. Accuracy of interpretation was lower than hypothesized on the basis of literature review (85.4% for pictograph, 65.7% for line graph, 47.8% for horizontal bar graph). Accuracy for pictograph and line graphs was associated with education level, chi2(1) = 3.94, P = 0.047, and chi2(1) = 7.55, P = 0.006, respectively. Accuracy was uncorrelated with men's reported liking of the graphs, chi2(1) = 2.00, P = 0.441.

CONCLUSION

While men generally liked the DA, accuracy of graphs interpretation was associated with format complexity and education level. Graphs are often recommended to improve comprehension of information in DAs. However, additional evaluation is needed in experimental and naturalistic observational settings to develop best practice standards for data representation.

Cultural influences on the physician-patient encounter: The case of shared treatment decision-making

OBJECTIVE

In this paper we discuss the influence of culture on the process of treatment decision-making, and in particular, shared treatment decision-making in the physician-patient encounter. We explore two key issues: (1) the meaning of culture and the ways that it can affect treatment decision-making; (2) cultural issues and assumptions underlying the development and use of treatment decision aids.

METHODS

This is a conceptual paper. Based on our knowledge and reading of the key literature in the treatment decision-making field, we looked for written examples where cultural influences were taken into account when discussing the physician-patient encounter and when designing instruments (decision aids) to help patients participate in making decisions.

RESULTS

Our assessment of the situation is that to date, and with some recent exceptions, research in the above areas has not been culturally sensitive.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that more research attention should be focused on exploring potential cultural variations in the meaning of and preferences for shared decision-making as well as on the applicability across cultural groups of decision aids developed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decision-making with physicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Both patients and physicians need to be aware of the cultural assumptions underlying the development and use of decision aids and assess their cultural sensitivity to the needs and preferences of patients in diverse cultural groups.

Treatment preference patterns during a videotape decision aid for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

OBJECTIVE

As part of a study of men's responses to a videotape decision aid [Rovner DR, Wills CE, Bonham V, Williams G, Lillie J, Kelly-Blake K, Williams MV, Holmes-Rovner M. Decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia: applicability across race and education. Med Decis Making 2004;24:359-66], preferences for BPH treatment options were assessed.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty men stratified by race and education completed a semi-structured interview that included assessments of treatment preferences.

RESULTS

Most men initially and ultimately favored watchful waiting over other options, and 56.6% never changed their preference rank orders while viewing the videotape. BPH severity in context of treatment risk avoidance, efficacy, and expert opinion factors were frequently cited reasons for preference orders. Lesser education was associated with higher likelihood of changing preferences (r = -.30, p < .001), and percent increase in BPH knowledge pre- to post-videotape was weakly associated with fewer non-dominant preference shifts (r = -.19, p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Conservatism regarding BPH treatment is moderated by context-specific factors, including new information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

Counseling in a provider-patient partnership model should address both sources of variance in men's treatment preferences.

Men's theories about benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer following a benign prostatic hyperplasia decision aid

OBJECTIVE

To use qualitative methods to explore audiotape evidence of unanticipated confusion between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer in using a videotape BPH treatment decision aid (DA).

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews and surveys originally collected to study men's interpretation of a DA.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Community sample of college and noncollege educated African American and white men (age> or =50; n=188).

MEASURES

Transcript analysis identified themes in men's comments about BPH and cancer. Surveys measured BPH general and prostate cancer-specific knowledge, literacy (Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults), BPH symptoms, and demographics.

RESULTS

In transcript analysis, 18/188 men spontaneously talked about BPH and cancer as being related to each other, despite explicit statements to the contrary in the video. Survey data suggest that up to 126/188 men (67%) persisted in misconceptions even after viewing the DA video. Three themes were identified in the transcripts: (1) BPH and cancer are equated, (2) BPH surgery is for the purpose of removing cancer, and (3) BPH leads to cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall knowledge increases with DA use may mask incorrect theories of disease process. Further research should identify decision support designs and clinical counseling strategies to address persistence of beliefs contrary to new information presented in evidence-based DAs.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in preference-sensitive decisions.

OBJECTIVES

1. Create a comprehensive inventory of patient decision aids focused on healthcare options. 2. Review randomized controlled trials (RCT) of decision aids, for people facing healthcare decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were identified through databases and contact with researchers active in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes. Information about the decision aids was compiled in an inventory; those that had been evaluated in a RCT were reviewed in detail.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardized forms. Results of RCTs were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 200 decision aids were identified. Of the 131 available decision aids, most are intended for use before counselling. Using the CREDIBLE criteria to evaluate the quality of the decision aids: a) most included potential harms and benefits, credentials of the developers, description of their development process, update policy, and were free of perceived conflict of interest; b) many included reference to relevant literature; c) few included a description of the level of uncertainty regarding the evidence; and d) few were evaluated. Thirty of these decision aids were evaluated in 34 RCTs and another trial evaluated a suite of eight decision aids. An additional 30 trials are yet to be published. Among the trials comparing decision aids to usual care, decision aids performed better in terms of: a) greater knowledge (WMD 19 out of 100, 95% CI: 13 to 24; b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1 to 1.9); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling informed (WMD -9.1 of 100, 95%CI: -12 to -6); d) increased proportion of people active in decision making (RR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post intervention (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7). When simpler were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in: a) knowledge (WMD 4 out of 100, 95% CI: 3 to 6); b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7); and c) greater agreement between values and choice. Decision aids appeared to do no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. Decision aids had a variable effect on which healthcare options were selected.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The availability of decision aids is expanding with many on the Internet; however few have been evaluated. Trials indicate that decision aids improve knowledge and realistic expectations; enhance active participation in decision making; lower decisional conflict; decrease the proportion of people remaining undecided, and improve agreement between values and choice. The effects on persistence with chosen therapies and cost-effectiveness require further evaluation. Finally, optimal strategies for dissemination need to be explored.