1
|
Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, Pacheco-Brousseau L, Finderup J, Gunderson J, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Bravo P, Steffensen K, Gogovor A, Graham ID, Kelly SE, Légaré F, Sondergaard H, Thomson R, Trenaman L, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD001431. [PMID: 38284415 PMCID: PMC10823577 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | - Meg Carley
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Robert Volk
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elisa E Douglas
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Jeanette Finderup
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Michael J Barry
- Informed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Carol L Bennett
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Paulina Bravo
- Education and Cancer Prevention, Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile
| | - Karina Steffensen
- Center for Shared Decision Making, IRS - Lillebælt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Amédé Gogovor
- VITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Shannon E Kelly
- Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - France Légaré
- Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Richard Thomson
- Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Logan Trenaman
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Singleton A, Partridge SR, Raeside R, Regimbal M, Hyun KK, Chow CK, Sherman K, Elder E, Redfern J. A text message intervention to support women's physical and mental health after breast cancer treatments (EMPOWER-SMS): a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Cancer 2019; 19:660. [PMID: 31272399 PMCID: PMC6610900 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5886-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2018] [Accepted: 06/26/2019] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. In developed countries, 80–90% of women will survive five years after diagnosis but the transition from hospital-based care to health self-management and self-efficacy can be difficult. Text messaging programs offer a simple and proven way to provide support to people with chronic diseases. This study aims to test the effectiveness of a text message support program at improving women’s health self-efficacy, and physical and mental health outcomes after breast cancer treatments compared to usual care at 6-months and to understand the barriers and enablers to widespread implementation. Methods Single-blind randomised control trial (RCT; N = 160) comparing a text message support intervention to usual care in women with breast cancer (recruited from a large tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia). The intervention group will receive a six-month text message support program, which consists of semi-personalised, supportive, lifestyle-focused text messages (4 messages/week) in addition to usual care. The control group will receive usual care without the text message program. Outcomes will be assessed at 6-months. The primary outcome is change in self-efficacy for managing chronic disease. Secondary outcomes include change in clinical outcomes (body mass index), lifestyle outcomes (physical activity levels, dietary behaviours), mood (depression and anxiety scales), quality of life, satisfaction with, and usefulness of the intervention. Analyses will be performed on the principle of intention-to-treat to examine differences between intervention and control groups. Discussion This study will test if a scalable and cost-effective text-messaging intervention is effective at improving women’s health self-efficacy, as well as physical and mental health outcomes. Moreover, this study will provide essential preliminary data to bolster a large multicentre RCT to helpsupport breast cancer survivors throughout recovery and beyond. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12618002020268, 17 December 2018
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Singleton
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
| | - S R Partridge
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School Public Health, Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - R Raeside
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - M Regimbal
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - K K Hyun
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - C K Chow
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia.,The George Institute for Global Health, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.,Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - K Sherman
- Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - E Elder
- Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - J Redfern
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Westmead Applied Research Centre (WARC), The University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia.,The George Institute for Global Health, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Neubeck L, Freedman B, Lowres N, Hyun K, Orchard J, Briffa T, Bauman A, Rogers K, Redfern J. Choice of Health Options in Prevention of Cardiovascular Events (CHOICE) Replication Study. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 27:1406-1414. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2017] [Revised: 09/08/2017] [Accepted: 09/25/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
|
4
|
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes‐Rovner M, Llewellyn‐Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4:CD001431. [PMID: 28402085 PMCID: PMC6478132 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1212] [Impact Index Per Article: 173.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
- Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Practice Changing Research501 Smyth RdOttawaONCanadaK1H 8L6
| | - France Légaré
- CHU de Québec Research Center, Université LavalPopulation Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Axis10 Rue de l'Espinay, D6‐727Québec CityQCCanadaG1L 3L5
| | - Krystina Lewis
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
| | | | - Carol L Bennett
- Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteClinical Epidemiology ProgramAdministrative Services Building, Room 2‐0131053 Carling AvenueOttawaONCanadaK1Y 4E9
| | - Karen B Eden
- Oregon Health Sciences UniversityDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical EpidemiologyBICC 5353181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park RoadPortlandOregonUSA97239‐3098
| | - Margaret Holmes‐Rovner
- Michigan State University College of Human MedicineCenter for Ethics and Humanities in the Life SciencesEast Fee Road956 Fee Road Rm C203East LansingMichiganUSA48824‐1316
| | - Hilary Llewellyn‐Thomas
- Dartmouth CollegeThe Dartmouth Center for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, The Geisel School of Medicine at DartmouthHanoverNew HampshireUSA03755
| | - Anne Lyddiatt
- No affiliation28 Greenwood RoadIngersollONCanadaN5C 3N1
| | - Richard Thomson
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health and SocietyBaddiley‐Clark BuildingRichardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AX
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- The University of SydneyRoom 322Edward Ford Building (A27)SydneyNSWAustralia2006
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
O'Hara BJ, Gale J, McGill B, Bauman A, Hebden L, Allman-Farinelli M, Maxwell M, Phongsavan P. Weight-Related Goal Setting in a Telephone-Based Preventive Health-Coaching Program: Demonstration of Effectiveness. Am J Health Promot 2016; 31:491-501. [PMID: 27485243 DOI: 10.1177/0890117116660776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study investigated whether participants in a 6-month telephone-based coaching program, who set physical activity, nutrition, and weight loss goals had better outcomes in these domains. DESIGN Quasi-experimental design. SETTING The Australian Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service (GHS), a free population-wide telephone health-coaching service that includes goal setting as a key component of its coaching program. PARTICIPANTS Consenting GHS coaching participants who had completed coaching between February 2009 and December 2012 (n = 4108). MEASURES At baseline, participants select a goal for the coaching program, and sociodemographic variables are collected. Self-reported weight, height, waist circumference, physical activity, and nutrition-related behaviors are assessed at baseline and 6 months. ANALYSIS Descriptive analysis was performed on key sociodemographic variables, and the relationship between goal type and change in health outcomes was assessed using a series of linear mixed models that modeled change from baseline to 6 months. RESULTS Participants who set goals in relation to weight management and physical activity achieved better results in these areas than those who set alternate goals, losing more than those who set alternate goals (1.5 kg and 0.9 cm in waist circumference) and increasing walking per week (40 minutes), respectively. There was no difference in food-related outcomes for those that set nutrition-related goals. CONCLUSION Goal setting for weight management and increasing physical activity in the overweight and obese population, undertaken in a telephone-based coaching program, can be effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Blythe J O'Hara
- 1 Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Joanne Gale
- 1 Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Bronwyn McGill
- 1 Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Adrian Bauman
- 1 Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lana Hebden
- 2 Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Margaret Allman-Farinelli
- 2 Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michelle Maxwell
- 3 NSW Office of Preventive Health, NSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Philayrath Phongsavan
- 1 Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Neubeck L, Lowres N, Jackson A, Freedman B, Briffa T, Bauman A, Redfern J. A simple screening tool for assessment of nutritional status in cardiac patients. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014. [DOI: 10.12968/bjca.2014.9.10.508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Lis Neubeck
- Senior Lecturer and Early Career Research Fellow, University of Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Anna Jackson
- dietitian, Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Ben Freedman
- Professor of Cardiology, Concord Hospital, Sydney
| | - Tom Briffa
- Associate Professor, School of Population Health, University of Western Australia
| | - Adrian Bauman
- Sesquicentenary Professor of Public Health, University of Sydney
| | - Julie Redfern
- Head of the Cardiovascular Health Services and Public Health Program, George Institute for Global Health, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JHC. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD001431. [PMID: 24470076 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 838] [Impact Index Per Article: 83.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Park JH, Tahk SJ, Bae SH, Son YJ. Effects of a psychoeducational intervention for secondary prevention in Korean patients with coronary artery disease: a pilot study. Int J Nurs Pract 2013; 19:295-305. [PMID: 23730862 DOI: 10.1111/ijn.12067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
This intervention study was designed to examine whether a 12-week psychoeducational intervention influenced recurrent cardiac events, symptom experience and treatment adherence of patients with coronary artery disease. Fifty-eight patients were randomized to either the intervention or the control group. Measures were taken at baseline, after intervention, and at 6-month follow-up. Recurrent cardiac events included revascularization, rehospitalization, emergency room visits and mortality. Symptom experiences were measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-Korean and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Treatment adherence included health behaviours, routine check-up and medication adherence. At 6-month follow-up, the intervention group had significantly better physical functions and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms. Treatment adherence was also significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group. No significant difference was noticed in the incidence of recurrent cardiac events between the groups. A longer follow-up study is needed to determine the long-term effects on the prevention of recurrent cardiac events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jin-Hee Park
- College of Nursing, Ajou University, Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Chew DPB, Scott IA. The changing face of cardiovascular care in Australia. Med J Aust 2013; 198:604-5. [DOI: 10.5694/mja12.11053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2012] [Accepted: 05/06/2013] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
10
|
Turner A, Murphy BM, Higgins RO, Elliott PC, Le Grande MR, Goble AJ, Worcester MUC. An integrated secondary prevention group programme reduces depression in cardiac patients. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012; 21:153-62. [DOI: 10.1177/2047487312467747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alyna Turner
- Heart Research Centre, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Barbara M Murphy
- Heart Research Centre, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Peter C Elliott
- Heart Research Centre, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | - Marian UC Worcester
- Heart Research Centre, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD001431. [PMID: 21975733 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 550] [Impact Index Per Article: 42.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
DeVon HA, Rankin SH, Paul SM, Ochs AL. The Know & Go! program improves knowledge for patients with coronary heart disease in pilot testing. Heart Lung 2010; 39:S23-33. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2010.07.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2009] [Revised: 04/30/2010] [Accepted: 07/22/2010] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
|