Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study

AIM

To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids.

PARTICIPANTS

People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants' perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS.

METHODS

Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program.

INTERVENTION

We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention.

ANALYSIS

For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses.

RESULTS

Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

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.

Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan

OBJECTIVE

To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability.

RESULTS

Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n = 9), location of care for elderly (n = 2), and social distancing (n = 1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.

From guidelines to decision aids and adherence supports: Insights from the process of evidence translation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence-translator's experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement.

METHODS

A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing.

RESULTS

Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation.

Developing an Educational and Decision Support Tool for Stage I Lung Cancer Using Decision Science

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about treatment options for high-risk, operable stage I lung cancer. Patient decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making; however, their development, implementation, and evaluation in routine clinical practice presents numerous challenges and opportunities.

METHODS

The purpose of this review is to reflect on the process of tool development; identify the challenges associated with meeting the needs of patients, clinicians from multiple disciplines, and institutional workflow during implementation; and propose recommendations for future clinicians who wish to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care.

RESULTS

In this review, we: (1) discuss guidelines for decision aid development; (2) describe how we applied those to create an education and decision support tool for patients with clinical stage I lung cancer deciding between radiation therapy and surgical resection; and (3) highlight challenges in implementing and evaluating the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide recommendations for those seeking to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care.

A scattered landscape: assessment of the evidence base for 71 patient decision aids developed in a hospital setting

Background

Recent publications reveal shortcomings in evidence review and summarization methods for patient decision aids. In the large-scale “Share to Care (S2C)” Shared Decision Making (SDM) project at the University Hospital Kiel, Germany, one of 4 SDM interventions was to develop up to 80 decision aids for patients. Best available evidence on the treatments’ impact on patient-relevant outcomes was systematically appraised to feed this information into the decision aids. Aims of this paper were to (1) describe how PtDAs are developed and how S2C evidence reviews for each PtDA are conducted, (2) appraise the quality of the best available evidence identified and (3) identify challenges associated with identified evidence.

Methods

The quality of the identified evidence was assessed based on GRADE quality criteria and categorized into high-, moderate-, low-, very low-quality evidence. Evidence appraisal was conducted across all outcomes assessed in an evidence review and for specific groups of outcomes, namely mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and treatment harms. Challenges in evidence interpretation and summarization resulting from the characteristics of decision aids and the type and quality of evidence are identified and discussed.

Results

Evidence reviews assessed on average 25 systematic reviews/guidelines/studies and took about 3 months to be completed. Despite rigorous review processes, nearly 70% of outcome-specific information derived for decision aids was based on low-quality and mostly on non-directly comparative evidence. Evidence on quality of life and harms was often not provided or not in sufficient form/detail. Challenges in evidence interpretation for use in decision aids resulted from, e.g., a lack of directly comparative evidence or the existence of very heterogeneous evidence for the diverse treatments being compared.

Conclusions

Evidence reviews in this project were carefully conducted and summarized. However, the evidence identified for our decision aids was indeed a “scattered landscape” and often poor quality. Facing a high prevalence of low-quality, non-directly comparative evidence for treatment alternatives doesn’t mean it is not necessary to choose an evidence-based approach to inform patients. While there is an urgent need for high quality comparative trials, best available evidence nevertheless has to be appraised and transparently communicated to patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01777-x.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs.

OBJECTIVE

To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs.

DESIGN

A two-round modified Delphi survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys.

DATA COLLECTION

We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback.

ANALYSIS

Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion.

RESULTS

Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence).

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.