Factors explaining the heterogeneity of effects of patient decision aids on knowledge of outcome probabilities: a systematic review sub-analysis

Eggsurance? A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for elective egg freezing

STUDY QUESTION

Does a purpose-designed Decision Aid for women considering elective egg freezing (EEF) impact decisional conflict and other decision-related outcomes?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The Decision Aid reduces decisional conflict, prepares women for decision-making, and does not cause distress.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

Elective egg-freezing decisions are complex, with 78% of women reporting high decisional conflict. Decision Aids are used to support complex health decisions. We developed an online Decision Aid for women considering EEF and demonstrated that it was acceptable and useful in Phase 1 testing.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A single-blind, two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial was carried out. Target sample size was 286 participants. Randomization was 1:1 to the control (existing website information) or intervention (Decision Aid plus existing website information) group and stratified by Australian state/territory and prior IVF specialist consultation. Participants were recruited between September 2020 and March 2021 with outcomes recorded over 12 months. Data were collected using online surveys and data collection was completed in March 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Females aged ≥18 years, living in Australia, considering EEF, proficient in English, and with internet access were recruited using multiple methods including social media posts, Google advertising, newsletter/noticeboard posts, and fertility clinic promotion. After completing the baseline survey, participants were emailed their allocated website link(s). Follow-up surveys were sent at 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Other outcomes included distress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale), knowledge about egg freezing and female age-related infertility (study-specific measure), whether a decision was made, preparedness to decide about egg freezing (Preparation for Decision-Making Scale), informed choice (Multi-Dimensional Measure of Informed Choice), and decision regret (Decision Regret Scale).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overall, 306 participants (mean age 30 years; SD: 5.2) were randomized (intervention n = 150, control n = 156). Decisional Conflict Scale scores were significantly lower at 12 months (mean score difference: -6.99 [95% CI: -12.96, -1.02], P = 0.022) for the intervention versus control group after adjusting for baseline decisional conflict. At 6 months, the intervention group felt significantly more prepared to decide about EEF than the control (mean score difference: 9.22 [95% CI: 2.35, 16.08], P = 0.009). At 12 months, no group differences were observed in distress (mean score difference: 0.61 [95% CI: -3.72, 4.93], P = 0.783), knowledge (mean score difference: 0.23 [95% CI: -0.21, 0.66], P = 0.309), or whether a decision was made (relative risk: 1.21 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.64], P = 0.212). No group differences were found in informed choice (relative risk: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.81, 1.25], P = 0.983) or decision regret (median score difference: -5.00 [95% CI: -15.30, 5.30], P = 0.337) amongst participants who had decided about EEF by 12 months (intervention n = 48, control n = 45).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Unknown participant uptake and potential sampling bias due to the recruitment methods used and restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Some outcomes had small sample sizes limiting the inferences made. The use of study-specific or adapted validated measures may impact the reliability of some results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate a Decision Aid for EEF. The Decision Aid reduced decisional conflict and improved women's preparation for decision making. The tool will be made publicly available and can be tailored for international use.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The Decision Aid was developed with funding from the Royal Women's Hospital Foundation and McBain Family Trust. The study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant APP1163202, awarded to M. Hickey, M. Peate, R.J. Norman, and R. Hart (2019-2021). S.S., M.P., D.K., and S.B. were supported by the NHMRC Project Grant APP1163202 to perform this work. R.H. is Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia and National Medical Director of City Fertility. He has received grants from MSD, Merck-Serono, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study and is a shareholder of CHA-SMG. R.L. is Director of Women's Health Melbourne (Medical Practice), ANZSREI Executive Secretary (Honorary), RANZCOG CREI Subspecialty Committee Member (Honorary), and a Fertility Specialist at Life Fertility Clinic Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital Public Fertility Service. R.A.A. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. M.H., K.H., and R.J.N. have no conflicts to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001032943.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

11 August 2020.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

29 September 2020.

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.

The use of interleukin-6 as a biomarker of lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is known for its fatality due to diagnosis at a late stage, indicating the need for the discovery of novel diagnostic biomarkers. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) belongs to a family of inflammatory cytokines shown to be elevated in cancer patients. Hence, in this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the association of IL-6 levels between lung cancer patients and healthy individuals, as this would further support its use as a clinical biomarker.

METHODS

All major electronic databases were systematically searched to find the existing literature from 2012 until September 2022 on the association of IL-6 levels with lung cancer. Mean and standard deviation of IL-6 levels of lung cancer patients and controls were recorded from the included case-control studies. The natural logarithm of the ratio of means (RoM) between patients and controls with its respective 95% confidence intervals was calculated to retrieve a pooled RoM value.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 559 lung cancer patients and 462 healthy controls were in included in the meta-analysis and a random-effects model was used due to high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.38%). Overall, IL-6 was found to be higher in lung cancer patients (pooled ln RoM = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.72-1.69, P < 0.0001) and all included studies were found to carry a low risk of bias after quality assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that IL-6 levels are higher in biological samples of lung cancer patients, indicating that they could be used as a biomarker for diagnosing lung cancer without complications. Further research should be undertaken to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, in order to obtain more concrete evidence for its clinical use.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Is pulpotomy a promising modality in treating permanent teeth? An umbrella review

Emerging evidence suggests the use of less invasive therapy such as pulpotomy in treating permanent teeth with pulp exposure and signs of pulpitis. Hence, this umbrella review aims to evaluate the available systematic reviews on pulpotomy treated permanent teeth. Articles published between January 1970 and May 2021 were searched in ten electronic databases and five textbooks. Only systematic reviews published in English that examined the use of pulpotomy on either carious or traumatic pulpal exposed in mature or immature permanent teeth with signs of pulpitis were selected. The Corrected Covered Areas (CCAs) were calculated to identify the overlap in primary studies, whereas the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool was used to analyze the risk of bias in each included review. Nine systematic reviews were chosen of which two systematic reviews focused solely on coronal pulpotomy, one on partial pulpotomy, and the remaining focused on both coronal and partial pulpotomies. Overall, only two reviews were rated as 'High Quality'. Umbrella analyses showed that both coronal and partial pulpotomies revealed overall high success rates ranging from 88.5% to 90.6%. However, the currently available evidence on the effects of different pulpal medicaments and restorative materials on the success rate of pulpotomy were still inconclusive. Pulpotomy can be regarded as a promising modality in treating mature and immature permanent teeth with carious pulpal exposure or signs of pulpitis. Nonetheless, further high-quality clinical trials with long-term follow-up and better control of confounding factors are warranted in the future.

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

BACKGROUND

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) among primary care physicians for enhanced chronic disease management is increasingly common, the evidence base is fragmented in terms of socially equitable impacts in achieving the quadruple aim for healthcare improvement: better population health, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced patient and provider experiences. This study aimed to assess the literature from a systematic review on how P4P for diabetes services impacts on gender equity in patient outcomes and the physician workforce.

METHODS

A gender-based analysis was performed of studies retrieved through a systematic search of 10 abstract and citation databases plus grey literature sources for P4P impact assessments in multiple languages over the period January 2000 to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was restricted to single-payer national health systems to minimize the risk of physicians sorting out of health organizations with a strong performance pay component. Two reviewers scored and synthesized the integration of sex and gender in assessing patient- and provider-oriented outcomes as well as the quality of the evidence.

FINDINGS

Of the 2218 identified records, 39 studies covering eight P4P interventions in seven countries were included for analysis. Most (79%) of the studies reported having considered sex/gender in the design, but only 28% presented sex-disaggregated patient data in the results of the P4P assessment models, and none (0%) assessed the interaction of patients' sex with the policy intervention. Few (15%) of the studies controlled for the provider's sex, and none (0%) discussed impacts of P4P on the work life of providers from a gender perspective (e.g., pay equity).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a dearth of evidence on gender-based outcomes of publicly funded incentivizing physician payment schemes for chronic disease care. As the popularity of P4P to achieve health system goals continues to grow, so does the risk of unintended consequences. There is a critical need for research integrating gender concerns to help inform performance-based health workforce financing policy options in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels

Background:

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. For an SDM process to occur, patients require functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL) skills.

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a program to improve health literacy skills for SDM in adults with lower literacy.

Methods:

An HL program including an SDM component (HL + SDM) and teaching of the three “AskShareKnow” questions was delivered in adult basic education settings in New South Wales, Australia. The program was evaluated using a partially cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing it to standard language, literacy, and numeracy (LLN) training. We measured the effect of these programs on (1) HL skills for SDM (conceptual knowledge, graphical literacy, health numeracy), (2) types of questions considered important for health decision-making, (3) preferences for control in decision-making, and (4) decisional conflict. We also measured AskShareKnow question recall, use, and evaluation in HL + SDM participants.

Key Results:

There were 308 participants from 28 classes enrolled in the study. Most participants had limited functional HL (71%) and spoke a language other than English at home (60%). In the primary analysis, the HL + SDM program compared with the standard LLN program significantly increased conceptual knowledge (19.1% difference between groups in students achieving the competence threshold; p = .018) and health numeracy (10.9% difference; p = .032), but not graphical literacy (5.8% difference; p = .896). HL + SDM participants were significantly more likely to consider it important to ask questions that would enable SDM compared to standard LLN participants who prioritized nonmedical procedural questions (all p < .01). There was no difference in preferences for control in decision-making or in decisional conflict. Among HL + SDM participants, 79% (n = 85) correctly recalled at least one of the AskShareKnow questions immediately post-intervention, and 35% (n = 29) after 6 months.

Conclusions:

Teaching SDM content increased participants' HL skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals in a way that would enable shared health decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S58–S74.]

Plain Language Summary:

We developed a health literacy program that included a shared decision-making (SDM) section. The program was delivered in adult basic education classes by trained educators and compared to standard language, literacy, and numeracy training. Teaching SDM content increased participants' health literacy skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has shown to reduce incidence and mortality rates, and therefore is widely recommended for people above 50 years-old. However, despite the implementation of population-based screening programs in several countries, uptake rates are still low. Decision aids (DAs) may help patients to make informed decisions about CRC screening.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a DA developed to promote CRC screening, with patients from two primary care centers in Spain who never had underwent CRC screening. Contrary to center B (n = 24), Center A (n = 83) attended patients from an area where the population-based screening program was not implemented at that moment. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge of the disease and available screening options, intention to uptake the test, and concordance between patients' goals/concerns and intention.

RESULTS

In center A, there were significant differences favoring the DA in decisional conflict (p < 0.001) and knowledge (p < 0.001). The absolute differences favoring DA group in intention to undergo fecal occult blood test (10.5%) and colonoscopy (13.7%) were significant only before correction for attenuation. In center B the differences were significant only for knowledge (p < 0.001). Patients' goals and concerns regarding the screening did not significantly predict their intention, and therefore we could not calculate a measure of concordance between the two constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

A DA improved the decisional process of participants who had never been invited to participate in the Spanish public CRC screening program, replicating previous results in this field. Future research is needed to identify subgroups that could benefit more from these interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Registered Clinical/social Study Number: ISRCTN98108615 (Retrospectively registered on 27 December 2018).

Quantifying heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis with binary outcomes

BACKGROUND

In meta-analyses (MA), effect estimates that are pooled together will often be heterogeneous. Determining how substantial heterogeneity is is an important aspect of MA.

METHOD

We consider how best to quantify heterogeneity in the context of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of binary data. Both two- and one-stage approaches are evaluated via simulation study. We consider conventional I ² and R ² statistics estimated via a two-stage approach and R ² estimated via a one-stage approach. We propose a simulation-based intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) adapted from Goldstein et al. to estimate the I ², from the one-stage approach.

RESULTS

Results show that when there is no effect modification, the estimated I ² from the two-stage model is underestimated, while in the one-stage model, it is overestimated. In the presence of effect modification, the estimated I ² from the one-stage model has better performance than that from the two-stage model when the prevalence of the outcome is high. The I ² from the two-stage model is less sensitive to the strength of effect modification when the number of studies is large and prevalence is low.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulation-based I ² based on a one-stage approach has better performance than the conventional I ² based on a two-stage approach when there is strong effect modification with high prevalence.

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.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Shared decision making is an important component of patient‐centred care and decision aids are tools designed to support patients' decision making and help patients with depression to make informed choices.

Objective

The study aim was to assess the effectiveness of a web‐based decision aid for patients with unipolar depression.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants

Adults diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and recruited in primary care centres were included and randomized to the decision aid (n=68) or usual care (n=79).

Intervention

Patients in the decision aid group reviewed the decision aid accompanied by a researcher.

Outcome measures

Knowledge about treatment options, decisional conflict, treatment intention and preference for participation in decision making. We also developed a pilot measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns about treatment options and their treatment intention.

Results

Intervention significantly improved knowledge (P<.001) and decisional conflict (P<.001), and no differences were observed in treatment intention, preferences for participation, or concordance. One of the scales developed to measure goals and concerns showed validity issues.

Conclusion

The decision aid “Decision making in depression” is effective improving knowledge of treatment options and reducing decisional conflict of patients with unipolar depression. More research is needed to establish a valid and reliable measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns regarding pharmacological and psychological treatment, and the choice made.

Risk calculators-methods, development, implementation, and validation

INTRODUCTION

A surgical risk calculator (SRC) estimates the probabilities of unfavorable outcomes such as complications or death after a specific surgery. The risk estimates are based on information regarding the patient's medical history and his current status. They are calculated using risk models derived from the analysis of data from a large number of previous patients in a similar clinical situation.

METHODS

This paper discusses several aspects of the SRC development and its implementation into clinical practice: the development of the statistical risk models, their validation and software implementation, the use of the SRC output for shared decision making in clinical settings, and the evaluation of the SRC's impact on individual patient outcomes as well as on the institution's quality of care of the clinical institution.

RESULTS

Probably the most elaborate SRC is the ACS NSQIP SRC. A comparable project was started by the German Society for Visceral and General Surgery (DGAV) in the framework of its Study, Documentation, and Quality Center (StuDoQ). It is relevant to consider that the transportability of a SRC from a US American to a German setting is not straightforward.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk calculators are important instruments for shared decision making between patients and doctor. Their implementation into clinical practice has to solve technical issues, and it is related to appropriate training of clinicians. There are specific study designs to evaluate the clinical impact of a SCR.

Patients or Volunteers? The Impact of Motivation for Trial Participation on the Efficacy of Patient Decision Aids: A Secondary Analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Background. Efficacy of patient decision aids (PtDAs) may be influenced by trial participants’ identity either as patients seeking to benefit personally from involvement or as volunteers supporting the research effort. Aim. To determine if study characteristics indicative of participants’ trial identity might influence PtDA efficacy. Methods. We undertook exploratory subgroup meta-analysis of the 2011 Cochrane review of PtDAs, including trials that compared PtDA with usual care for treatment decisions. We extracted data on whether participants initiated the care pathway, setting, practitioner interactions, and 6 outcome variables (knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear about values, and participation). The main subgroup analysis categorized trials as “volunteerism” or “patienthood” on the basis of whether participants initiated the care pathway. A supplementary subgroup analysis categorized trials on the basis of whether any volunteerism factors were present (participants had not initiated the care pathway, had attended a research setting, or had a face-to-face interaction with a researcher). Results. Twenty-nine trials were included. Compared with volunteerism trials, pooled effect sizes were higher in patienthood trials (where participants initiated the care pathway) for knowledge, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear, and participation. The subgroup difference was statistically significant for knowledge only ( P = 0.03). When trials were compared on the basis of whether volunteerism factors were present, knowledge was significantly greater in patienthood trials ( P < 0.001), but there was otherwise no consistent pattern of differences in effects across outcomes. Conclusions. There is a tendency toward greater PtDA efficacy in trials in which participants initiate the pathway of care. Knowledge acquisition appears to be greater in trials where participants are predominantly patients rather than volunteers.

[Decision making satisfaction in health scale: instrument adapted and validated to Portuguese]

Decision making is an area of health research that has gained importance both for the partnership models of care that give prominence to the patient and family, either by growing concern about quality and customer satisfaction with the care provided. So we decided to make the cultural adaptation and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version "The Satisfaction with Decision Scale" de Holmes-Rovner (1996), which aims to assess satisfaction with the decisions taken in health. The sample consisted of 521 nursing students the School of Nursing of Porto. The results of reliability tests show good internal consistency for the total items (Alpha Cronbach = 0.88). The psychometric study allows us to state that the Portuguese version of "The Satisfaction with Decision Scale", we call "Escala da Satisfação com a Decisão em Saúde", is an instrument comparable with the original in terms of validity and reliability.

The effect of prognostic data presentation format on perceived risk among surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients: a randomized comparative trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether varying the format used to present prognostic data alters the perception of risk among surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized comparative trial conducted in a 23-bed adult tertiary ICU. Enrolled surrogate decision makers were randomized to 1 of 2 questionnaires, which presented hypothetical ICU scenarios, identical other than the format in which prognostic data were presented (eg, frequencies vs percentages). Participants were asked to rate the risk associated with each prognostic statement.

RESULTS

We enrolled 141 surrogate decision makers. The perception of risk varied significantly dependent on the presentation format. For "quantitative data," risks were consistently perceived as higher, when presented as frequencies (eg, 1 in 50) compared with equivalent percentages (eg, 2%). Framing "qualitative data" in terms of chance of "death" rather than "survival" led to a statistically significant increase in perceived risks. Framing "quantitative" data in this way did not significantly affect risk perception.

CONCLUSION

Data format had a significant effect on how surrogate decision makers interpreted risk. Qualitative statements are interpreted widely and affected by framing. Where possible, multiple quantitative formats should be used for presenting prognostic information.

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.