Literature DB >> 22778792

Decision aids for patients.

Matthias Lenz1, Susanne Buhse, Jürgen Kasper, Ramona Kupfer, Tanja Richter, Ingrid Mühlhauser.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients want to be more involved in medical decision-making. To this end, some decision aids are now available.
METHODS: We present an overview of this subject, in which we explain the terms "shared decision-making", "decision aid", and "evidence-based patient information" and survey information on the available decision aids in German and other languages on the basis of a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo and a current Cochrane Review. We also searched the Internet for providers of decision aids in Germany.
RESULTS: Decision aids exist in the form of brochures, decision tables, videos, and computer programs; they address various topics in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. They typically contain information on the advantages and disadvantages of the available options, as well as guidance for personal decision-making. They can be used alone or as a part of structured counseling or patient education. Minimal quality standards include an adequate evidence base, completeness, absence of bias, and intelligibility. Our search revealed 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids in German and 106 RCTs of decision aids in other languages. These trials studied the outcome of the use of decision aids not just with respect to clinical developments, but also with respect to patient knowledge, adherence to treatment regimens, satisfaction, involvement in decision-making, autonomy preference, and decisional conflicts.
CONCLUSION: Only a small fraction of the available decision aids were systematically developed and have been subjected to systematic evaluation. Patients are still not receiving the help in decision-making to which medical ethics entitles them. Structures need to be put in place for the sustainable development, evaluation and implementation of high-quality decision aids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22778792      PMCID: PMC3389744          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  31 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review.

Authors:  M Lenz; A Steckelberg; B Richter; I Mühlhauser
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia.

Authors:  J Hamann; B Langer; V Winkler; R Busch; R Cohen; S Leucht; W Kissling
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 6.392

Review 3.  A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence.

Authors:  Lyndal J Trevena; Heather M Davey; Alexandra Barratt; Phyllis Butow; Patrina Caldwell
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 4.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Authors:  Dawn Stacey; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; France Légaré; Richard Thomson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-10-05

5.  Implementation of a patient education program on multiple sclerosis relapse management.

Authors:  Sascha Köpke; Tanja Richter; Jürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Peter Flachenecker; Christoph Heesen
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-04-19

6.  Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  J Kasper; S Köpke; I Mühlhauser; M Nübling; C Heesen
Journal:  Eur J Neurol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 6.089

7.  Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Extended preoperative patient education using a multimedia DVD-impact on patients receiving a laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  D Wilhelm; S Gillen; H Wirnhier; M Kranzfelder; A Schneider; A Schmidt; H Friess; H Feussner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2009-01-17       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi).

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Annette M O'Connor; Carol Bennett; Robert G Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Elizabeth Drake; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Sara Khangura; Anton Saarimaki; Stephanie Sivell; Mareike Stiel; Steven J Bernstein; Nananda Col; Angela Coulter; Karen Eden; Martin Härter; Margaret Holmes Rovner; Nora Moumjid; Dawn Stacey; Richard Thomson; Tim Whelan; Trudy van der Weijden; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer.

Authors:  A Vodermaier; C Caspari; J Koehm; S Kahlert; N Ditsch; M Untch
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  21 in total

1.  Finding information by quality providers is an issue.

Authors:  Corinna Schaefer; Klaus Koch
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  [Decision aids for patients are widely accepted by German urologists : A survey among members of the German Society of Urology (DGU) and the Federation of German Urologists (BDU)].

Authors:  C Groeben; M Baunacke; A Borkowetz; S Kliesch; C Wülfing; A Ihrig; J Huber
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

4.  Patient education as empowerment and self-rebiasing.

Authors:  Fabrice Jotterand; Antonio Amodio; Bernice S Elger
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-12

Review 5.  Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes.

Authors:  I Mühlhauser; G Meyer
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 10.122

6.  Development and application of patient decision aids.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2015-04-08

7.  Evidence-based health information and risk competence.

Authors:  Ingrid Mühlhauser; Martina Albrecht; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2015-07-09

Review 8.  Watchful waiting or induction of labour--a matter of informed choice: identification, analysis and critical appraisal of decision aids and patient information regarding care options for women with uncomplicated singleton late and post term pregnancies: a review.

Authors:  Bettina Berger; Christiane Schwarz; Peter Heusser
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.659

9.  Evidence-based health information from the users' perspective--a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Irene Hirschberg; Gabriele Seidel; Daniel Strech; Hilda Bastian; Marie-Luise Dierks
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Development of decision aids for female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in Germany to support preference-sensitive decision-making.

Authors:  Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth; Marcus Redaèlli; Kerstin Rhiem; Andrea Vodermaier; Lisa Krassuski; Kathrin Nicolai; Miriam Schnepper; Violetta Kuboth; Julia Dick; Vera Vennedey; Regina Wiedemann; Rita Schmutzler; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.