OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). RESULTS: Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = -8.4, 95% CI = -11.9 to -4.8; unclear values WMD = -6.3, 95% CI = -10.0 to -2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). RESULTS: Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = -8.4, 95% CI = -11.9 to -4.8; unclear values WMD = -6.3, 95% CI = -10.0 to -2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.
Authors: France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Ratté; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: France Légaré; Dawn Stacey; Nathalie Brière; Sophie Desroches; Serge Dumont; Kimberley Fraser; Mary-Anne Murray; Anne Sales; Denise Aubé Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.254