Protocol for the evaluation of a decision aid for women with a breech-presenting baby [ISRCTN14570598]

Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review

Background

Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals’ knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options.

Methods

A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration’s review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies.

Results

A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined “balance”; the definition of “balance” that emerged is as follows: “The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options—in content and in format—in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias”. Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users’ or patients’ perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as “balanced”.

Conclusion

There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.

Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity

Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids--to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices--is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids--as they have been conceived and operationalized so far--can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot two computer-based decision aids to assist women with decision-making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section (CS), which could then be evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Women with a previous CS are faced with a decision between repeat elective CS and vaginal birth after caesarean. Research has shown that women may benefit from access to comprehensive information about the risks and benefits of the delivery options.

DESIGN

A qualitative pilot study of two novel decision aids, an information program and a decision analysis program, which were developed by a multidisciplinary research team.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

15 women who had recently given birth and had previously had a CS and 11 pregnant women with a previous CS, recruited from two UK hospitals. Women were interviewed and observed using the decision aids.

RESULTS

Participants found both decision aids useful and informative. Most liked the computer-based format. Participants found the utility assessment of the decision analysis program acceptable although some had difficulty completing the tasks required. Following the pilot study improvements were made to expand the program content, the decision analysis program was accompanied by a training session and a website version of the information program was developed to allow repeat access.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study was an essential step in the design of the decision aids and in establishing their acceptability and feasibility. In general, participating women viewed the decision aids as a welcome addition to routine antenatal care. A randomized trial has been conducted to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the decision aids.

Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN14570598]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a decision aid for women with a breech presentation compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary obstetric hospitals offering external cephalic version (ECV).

POPULATION

Women with a singleton pregnancy were diagnosed antenatally with a breech presentation at term, and were clinically eligible for ECV.

METHODS

Women were randomised to either receive a decision aid about the management options for breech presentation in addition to usual care or to receive usual care only with standard counselling from their usual pregnancy care provider. The decision aid comprised a 24-page booklet supplemented by a 30-minute audio-CD and worksheet that was designed for women to take home and review with a partner.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Decisional conflict (uncertainty), knowledge, anxiety and satisfaction with decision making, and were assessed using self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Compared with usual care, women reviewing the decision aid experienced significantly lower decisional conflict (mean difference -8.92; 95% CI -13.18, -4.66) and increased knowledge (mean difference 8.40; 95% CI 3.10, 13.71), were more likely to feel that they had enough information to make a decision (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.14, 1.47), had no increase in anxiety and reported greater satisfaction with decision making and overall experience of pregnancy and childbirth. In contrast, 19% of women in the usual care group reported they would have made a different decision about their care.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid is an effective and acceptable tool for pregnant women that provides an important adjunct to standard counselling for the management of breech presentation.

A systematic review of information in decision aids

OBJECTIVE

We completed a systematic review of information reported as included in decision aids (DAs) for adult patients, to determine if it is complete, balanced and accurate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

DAs were identified using the Cochrane Database of DAs and searches of four electronic databases using the terms: 'decision aid'; shared decision making' and 'patients'; 'multimedia or leaflets or pamphlets or videos and patients and decision making'. Additionally, publications reporting DA development and actual DAs that were reported as publicly available on the Internet were consulted. Publications were included up to May 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the following variables: external groups consulted in development of the DA, type of study used, categories of information, inclusion of probabilities, use of citation lists and inclusion of patient experiences.

MAIN RESULTS

68 treatment DAs and 30 screening DAs were identified. 17% of treatment DAs and 47% of screening DAs did not report any external consultation and, of those that did, DA producers tended to rely more heavily on medical experts than on patients' guidance. Content evaluations showed that (i) treatment DAs frequently omit describing the procedure(s) involved in treatment options and (ii) screening DAs frequently focus on false positives but not false negatives. About 1/2 treatment DAs reported probabilities with a greater emphasis on potential benefits than harms. Similarly, screening DAs were more likely to provide false-positive than false-negative rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The review led us to be concerned about completeness, balance and accuracy of information included in DAs.