Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

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

[Making a decision about hormone replacement therapy. A randomized controlled trial]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a decision-making aid with an information document from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) with regard to decisions about hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Quebec city region.

PARTICIPANTS

Menopausal Francophone women 45 to 69 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were given a manual and an audiocassette describing a six-step approach to making a decision about HRT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Amount of anxiety over the decision (main outcome), general knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, personal expectations and values concerning these risks and benefits, and women's views on HRT.

RESULTS

Anxiety levels were significantly reduced in both groups, but the difference between the effectiveness of the two interventions was not significant (P = .77). Percentages of women whose general knowledge increased and of women with realistic expectations were significantly higher in the experimental group (P < .003 and P < .0001, respectively). Congruence between personal values and decisions about HRT increased significantly more in the experimental group (P < or = .003).

CONCLUSION

The six-step approach to decision making was more helpful than the SOGC's information document in increasing subjects' knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, in creating more realistic expectations of HRT, and in increasing the congruence between subjects' personal values and their decisions on HRT.

A decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older persons

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation of a decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older people.

DESIGN

Before-and-after study.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Substitute decision makers for 15 cognitively impaired inpatients 65 years and older being considered for placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.

MEASUREMENTS

Questionnaires were used to compare the substitute decision makers' knowledge, decisional conflict, and predisposition regarding feeding tube placement before and after exposure to the decision aid. The acceptability of the decision aid was also assessed.

RESULTS

Substitute decision makers significantly increased their knowledge (P = .004) and decreased their decisional conflict (P = .004) regarding long-term tube feeding after using the decision aid. The impact of the decision aid on predisposition toward the intervention was greatest for those who were unsure of their preferences at baseline. All substitute decision makers found the decision aid helpful and acceptable despite very difficult and emotional circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid improves the decision-making process for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older patients by decreasing decisional conflict and by promoting decisions that are informed and consistent with personal values. There are particular challenges for developing and evaluating these tools in the context of end-of-life decisions.

The psychometric properties of patient preferences in osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease manifested by wrist, vertebral, and hip fractures that results in significant morbidity and burden to society. About 30% of postmenopausal women have osteoporosis according to the WHO criteria. Women with one vertebral fracture have a 4-fold increased risk of a subsequent fracture. The goal of treatment is to prevent fractures and improve quality of life. Preferences or utilities are now recommended for incorporating quality of life into evaluations of the cost effectiveness of new therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the psychometric properties of preference based measures in osteoporosis.

METHODS

Preference scenarios were constructed with a health state classification system. The reliability and validity of the feeling thermometer and the standard gamble was assessed by interviewing 42 women from 4 different patient groups. The sensitivity to change of the feeling thermometer and standard gamble was compared with the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and SF-36. All subgroups were reassessed about 2 months after their first interview.

RESULTS

Preference measurement was feasible in women of different age groups. The reliability coefficients for health states ranged from 0.65 to 0.87. The preference scores for the marker states demonstrated content validity. Convergent validity of the feeling thermometer was supported by a significant correlation with the HUI2 (r = 0.38, p < 0.05) and the physical health summary of the SF-36 (r = 0.56, p < 0.005). The standard gamble did not correlate with the HUI2 (r = 0.15) or the feeling thermometer (r = 0.09), but correlated with 2 domains of the SF-36. The preference measures were sensitive to change, with the efficiency scores ranging from 0.78 to 1.0.

CONCLUSION

Preference measurements in the evaluation of osteoporosis are feasible. The feeling thermometer and standard gamble appear to be related to different aspects of health related quality of life. Both instruments were sensitive to change over a 2 month period.

Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of randomised trials of patient decision aids in improving decision making and outcomes.

DESIGN

We included randomised trials of interventions providing structured, detailed, and specific information on treatment or screening options and outcomes to aid decision making. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data on several evaluation criteria. Results were pooled by using weighted mean differences and relative risks.

RESULTS

17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the controls, decision aids produced higher knowledge scores (weighted mean difference=19/100, 95% confidence interval 14 to 25); lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference=-0.3/5, -0.4 to -0.1); more active patient participation in decision making (relative risk = 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1. 3 to 4); and no differences in anxiety, satisfaction with decisions (weighted mean difference=0.6/100, -3 to 4), or satisfaction with the decision making process (2/100,-3 to 7). Decision aids had a variable effect on decisions. When complex decision aids were compared with simpler versions, they were better at reducing decisional conflict, improved knowledge marginally, but did not affect satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and stimulate patients to be more active in decision making without increasing their anxiety. Decision aids have little effect on satisfaction and a variable effect on decisions. The effects on outcomes of decisions (persistence with choice, quality of life) remain uncertain.