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.
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.
Authors: A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; H Bunn; I Graham; E Drake Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 1998-03
Authors: C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M L Rothert; M Holmes-Rovner; D Rovner; J Kroll; L Breer; G Talarczyk; N Schmitt; G Padonu; C Wills Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: M Man-Son-Hing; A Laupacis; A M O'Connor; R G Hart; G Feldman; J L Blackshear; D C Anderson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 5.128