PURPOSE: Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve communication between health professionals and patients, and to involve patients in decisions about their health care. Cancer-related decisions can be difficult due to problems in communicating complex information about prognosis and the modest benefits of available treatments. We conducted a systematic review of cancer-related DAs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer-related DAs about screening, prevention, and treatment decision making were included. We completed a comprehensive literature search and conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also conducted a meta regression to explore heterogeneity of effect estimates. RESULTS: We identified 34 RCTs of DAs in a screening (n = 22 trials) or preventive/treatment (n = 12 trials) context. DAs significantly improved knowledge about screening options when compared to usual practice (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P < .0001). A similar effect on knowledge was also found for preventive/treatment options (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P < .0001). Overall, general anxiety was not increased in most trials and was significantly reduced in a screening context. Decisional conflict was reduced overall but not when screening and preventive/treatment studies were analyzed separately. There were few differences between different types of DAs. CONCLUSION: Cancer-related DAs are effective in increasing patient knowledge compared with usual practice without increasing anxiety particularly in the area of cancer screening. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of DAs in the prevention and treatment context.
PURPOSE: Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve communication between health professionals and patients, and to involve patients in decisions about their health care. Cancer-related decisions can be difficult due to problems in communicating complex information about prognosis and the modest benefits of available treatments. We conducted a systematic review of cancer-related DAs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer-related DAs about screening, prevention, and treatment decision making were included. We completed a comprehensive literature search and conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also conducted a meta regression to explore heterogeneity of effect estimates. RESULTS: We identified 34 RCTs of DAs in a screening (n = 22 trials) or preventive/treatment (n = 12 trials) context. DAs significantly improved knowledge about screening options when compared to usual practice (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P < .0001). A similar effect on knowledge was also found for preventive/treatment options (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P < .0001). Overall, general anxiety was not increased in most trials and was significantly reduced in a screening context. Decisional conflict was reduced overall but not when screening and preventive/treatment studies were analyzed separately. There were few differences between different types of DAs. CONCLUSION:Cancer-related DAs are effective in increasing patient knowledge compared with usual practice without increasing anxiety particularly in the area of cancer screening. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of DAs in the prevention and treatment context.
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Clinton Finch; Erica Wahl; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Monica Morrow; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katrina Lindblom; Tess Gregory; Carlene Wilson; Ingrid H K Flight; Ian Zajac Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-08-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Dominique G Ruggieri; Suzanne M Miller; Sharon Manne; Terrance Albrecht; Joanne Buzaglo; Michael A Collins; Michael Katz; Tyler G Kinzy; Tasnuva Liu; Cheri Manning; Ellen Specker Charap; Jennifer Millard; Dawn M Miller; David Poole; Stephanie Raivitch; Nancy Roach; Eric A Ross; Neal J Meropol Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-04-21
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Michaela S Tracy; Meghan E Meyer; Karen Sepucha; Shari Gelber; Judi Hirshfield-Bartek; Susan Troyan; Monica Morrow; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Caroline S Dorfman; Randi M Williams; Elisabeth C Kassan; Sara N Red; David L Dawson; William Tuong; Elizabeth R Parker; Janet Ohene-Frempong; Kimberly M Davis; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Marc D Schwartz; Mary B Fishman; Carmella Cole; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Carlene J Wilson; Ingrid H K Flight; Ian T Zajac; Deborah Turnbull; Graeme P Young; Stephen R Cole; Tess Gregory Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 2.796