Sarah Munro1, Dawn Stacey2, Krystina B Lewis2, Nick Bansback3. 1. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada; Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: smunro@cfri.ca. 2. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how well patients make value congruent decisions with and without patient decision aids (PtDAs) for screening and treatment options, and identify issues with its measurement and evaluation. METHODS: A sub-analysis of trials included in the 2014 Cochrane Review of Decision Aids. Eligible trials measured value congruence with chosen option. Two reviewers independently screened 115 trials. RESULTS: Among 18 included trials, 8 (44%) measured value congruence using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), 7 (39%) used heterogeneous methods, and 3 (17%) used unclear methods. Pooled results of trials that used heterogeneous measures were statistically non-significant (n=3). Results from trials that used the MMIC suggest patients are 48% more likely to make value congruent decisions when exposed to a PtDA for a screening decision (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, n=8). CONCLUSION: Patients struggle to make value congruent decisions, but PtDAs may help. While the absolute improvement is relatively small it may be underestimated due to sample size issues, definitions, and heterogeneity of measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Current approaches are inadequate to support patients making decisions that are consistent with their values. There is some evidence that PtDAs support patients with achieving values congruent decisions for screening choices.
OBJECTIVE: To understand how well patients make value congruent decisions with and without patient decision aids (PtDAs) for screening and treatment options, and identify issues with its measurement and evaluation. METHODS: A sub-analysis of trials included in the 2014 Cochrane Review of Decision Aids. Eligible trials measured value congruence with chosen option. Two reviewers independently screened 115 trials. RESULTS: Among 18 included trials, 8 (44%) measured value congruence using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), 7 (39%) used heterogeneous methods, and 3 (17%) used unclear methods. Pooled results of trials that used heterogeneous measures were statistically non-significant (n=3). Results from trials that used the MMIC suggest patients are 48% more likely to make value congruent decisions when exposed to a PtDA for a screening decision (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, n=8). CONCLUSION:Patients struggle to make value congruent decisions, but PtDAs may help. While the absolute improvement is relatively small it may be underestimated due to sample size issues, definitions, and heterogeneity of measures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Current approaches are inadequate to support patients making decisions that are consistent with their values. There is some evidence that PtDAs support patients with achieving values congruent decisions for screening choices.
Authors: Elizabeth G Liles; Michael C Leo; Amanda S Freed; Kathryn M Porter; Jamilyn M Zepp; Tia L Kauffman; Erin Keast; Carmit K McMullen; Inga Gruß; Barbara B Biesecker; Kristin R Muessig; Donna J Eubanks; Laura M Amendola; Michael O Dorschner; Bradley A Rolf; Gail P Jarvik; Katrina A B Goddard; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: Genet Med Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Gayathri Embuldeniya; Jasprit Pannag; Krystina B Lewis; Jeff S Healey; Michael McGillion; Lehana Thabane; Dawn Stacey Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Maarten Cuypers; Romy Ed Lamers; Paul Jm Kil; Regina The; Klemens Karssen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Marieke de Vries Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Holly O Witteman; Ruth Ndjaboue; Gratianne Vaisson; Selma Chipenda Dansokho; Bob Arnold; John F P Bridges; Sandrine Comeau; Angela Fagerlin; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Melina Marcoux; Arwen Pieterse; Michael Pignone; Thierry Provencher; Charles Racine; Dean Regier; Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay; Praveen Thokala; Marieke Weernink; Douglas B White; Celia E Wills; Jesse Jansen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Patti L Ephraim; Jessica Ameling; LaPricia Lewis-Boyer; Hamid Rabb; Raquel C Greer; Deidra C Crews; Bernard G Jaar; Priscilla Auguste; Tanjala S Purnell; Julio A Lamprea-Monteleagre; Tope Olufade; Luis Gimenez; Courtney Cook; Tiffany Campbell; Ashley Woodall; Hema Ramamurthi; Cleomontina A Davenport; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Matthew R Weir; Donna S Hanes; Nae-Yuh Wang; Helene Vilme; Neil R Powe Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Glen S Hazlewood; Deborah A Marshall; Claire E H Barber; Linda C Li; Cheryl Barnabe; Vivian Bykerk; Peter Tugwell; Pauline M Hull; Nick Bansback Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.711