BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients make informed treatment decisions. Values clarification (VC) techniques are part of decision aids that help patients assimilate the information with their personal values. There is little evidence that these techniques contribute to enhanced decision making over and above the provision of good quality information. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether VC techniques are active ingredients in enhancing informed decision making and explain how and why they work. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (i) information only, (ii) information plus implicit task, (iii) information plus explicit task. Thirty healthy women from a UK University participated by making a hypothetical choice between taking part in a clinical trial and having the standard treatment for breast cancer. Verbal protocols were elicited by think-aloud method and content analysed to assess informed decision making; a questionnaire was completed after the decision assessing decision preference, perceptions of decisional conflict and ambivalence. Data were analysed using multivariate statistics. FINDINGS: No participants changed their decision preference as a result of the VC techniques. Women in the explicit VC group evaluated more information in accord with personal values, expressed lower ambivalence, decisional uncertainty and greater clarity of personal values than those in the implicit VC and control groups. Feelings of ambivalence about both options were related to decisional conflict. CONCLUSION:Explicit VC techniques are likely to be active ingredients in decision aids. They work by enabling people to deliberate about the decision information in accord with their personal values, which is associated with a better decision experience.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients make informed treatment decisions. Values clarification (VC) techniques are part of decision aids that help patients assimilate the information with their personal values. There is little evidence that these techniques contribute to enhanced decision making over and above the provision of good quality information. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether VC techniques are active ingredients in enhancing informed decision making and explain how and why they work. METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (i) information only, (ii) information plus implicit task, (iii) information plus explicit task. Thirty healthy women from a UK University participated by making a hypothetical choice between taking part in a clinical trial and having the standard treatment for breast cancer. Verbal protocols were elicited by think-aloud method and content analysed to assess informed decision making; a questionnaire was completed after the decision assessing decision preference, perceptions of decisional conflict and ambivalence. Data were analysed using multivariate statistics. FINDINGS: No participants changed their decision preference as a result of the VC techniques. Women in the explicit VC group evaluated more information in accord with personal values, expressed lower ambivalence, decisional uncertainty and greater clarity of personal values than those in the implicit VC and control groups. Feelings of ambivalence about both options were related to decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Explicit VC techniques are likely to be active ingredients in decision aids. They work by enabling people to deliberate about the decision information in accord with their personal values, which is associated with a better decision experience.
Authors: H Bekker; J G Thornton; C M Airey; J B Connelly; J Hewison; M B Robinson; J Lilleyman; M MacIntosh; A J Maule; S Michie; A D Pearman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paul Ellis; Peter Barrett-Lee; Lindsay Johnson; David Cameron; Andrew Wardley; Susan O'Reilly; Mark Verrill; Ian Smith; John Yarnold; Robert Coleman; Helena Earl; Peter Canney; Chris Twelves; Christopher Poole; David Bloomfield; Penelope Hopwood; Stephen Johnston; Mitchell Dowsett; John M S Bartlett; Ian Ellis; Clare Peckitt; Emma Hall; Judith M Bliss Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
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: Mirjam M Garvelink; Moniek M ter Kuile; Anne M Stiggelbout; Marieke de Vries Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 2.796