Peter Scalia1, Marie-Anne Durand1, Jan Kremer2, Marjan Faber2, Glyn Elwyn1. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, USA (PS, MD, GE). 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Gelderland, The Netherlands (JK, MF).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that patient decision aids can modify users' preferred healthcare options, but research has yet to identify the attributes embedded in these tools that cause preferences to shift. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate people's preferences as they used decision aids for 5 health decisions and, for each of the following: 1) determine if using the interactive Option Grid led to a pre-post shift in preferences; 2) determine which frequently asked questions (FAQs) led to preference shifts; 3) determine the FAQs that were rated as the most important as users compared options. METHODS: Interactive Option Grid decision aids enable users to view attributes of available treatment or screening options, rate their importance, and specify their preferred options before and after decision aid use. The McNemar-Bowker paired test was used to compare stated pre-post preferences. Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to investigate possible associations between covariates and preference shifts. RESULTS: Overall, 626 users completed the 5 most-used tools: 1) Amniocentesis test: yes or no? ( n = 73); 2) Angina: treatment options ( n = 88); 3) Breast cancer: surgical options ( n = 265); 4) Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test: yes or no? ( n = 82); 5) Statins for heart disease risk: yes or no? ( n = 118). The breast cancer, PSA, and statins Option Grid decision aids generated significant preference shifts. Generally, users shifted their preference when presented with the description of the available treatment options, and the risk associated with each option. CONCLUSION: The use of decision aids for some, but not all health decisions, was accompanied by a shift in user preferences. Users typically valued information associated with risks, and chose more risk averse options after completing the interactive tool.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that patient decision aids can modify users' preferred healthcare options, but research has yet to identify the attributes embedded in these tools that cause preferences to shift. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate people's preferences as they used decision aids for 5 health decisions and, for each of the following: 1) determine if using the interactive Option Grid led to a pre-post shift in preferences; 2) determine which frequently asked questions (FAQs) led to preference shifts; 3) determine the FAQs that were rated as the most important as users compared options. METHODS: Interactive Option Grid decision aids enable users to view attributes of available treatment or screening options, rate their importance, and specify their preferred options before and after decision aid use. The McNemar-Bowker paired test was used to compare stated pre-post preferences. Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to investigate possible associations between covariates and preference shifts. RESULTS: Overall, 626 users completed the 5 most-used tools: 1) Amniocentesis test: yes or no? ( n = 73); 2) Angina: treatment options ( n = 88); 3) Breast cancer: surgical options ( n = 265); 4) Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test: yes or no? ( n = 82); 5) Statins for heart disease risk: yes or no? ( n = 118). The breast cancer, PSA, and statins Option Grid decision aids generated significant preference shifts. Generally, users shifted their preference when presented with the description of the available treatment options, and the risk associated with each option. CONCLUSION: The use of decision aids for some, but not all health decisions, was accompanied by a shift in user preferences. Users typically valued information associated with risks, and chose more risk averse options after completing the interactive tool.
Authors: Carmen S S Latenstein; Floris M Thunnissen; Bastiaan J M Thomeer; Bob J van Wely; Marjan J Meinders; Glyn Elwyn; Philip R de Reuver Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Francisca M Vermeulen; Gayle E van der Kraaij; Ronald A Tupker; Anne Bijlsma; Hans Blaauwbroek; Francine Das; Tessa Geltink; Josine S van der Kraan; Renske Kranenburg; Dirk J van der Veen; Kristie Venhorst; Phyllis I Spuls Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.875