Renata W Yen1, Jenna Smith2, Jaclyn Engel1, Danielle Marie Muscat2, Sian K Smith3, Julien Mancini4, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez5, Glyn Elwyn1, A James O'Malley1,6, JoAnna K Leyenaar1,7, Olivia Mac2, Tamara Cadet8,9, Anik Giguere10, Ashley J Housten11, Aisha Langford12, Kirsten McCaffery2, Marie-Anne Durand1,13. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA. 2. Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. University of Bath, School of Management, Bath, Somerset, UK. 4. Aix-Marseille Université, APHM, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseille, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azu, France. 5. Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA. 7. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 8. School of Social Work, Simmons University, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada. 11. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. 12. New York University School of Medicine, Division of Comparative Effectiveness and Decision Science, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA. 13. Faculté de Médecine, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. PURPOSE: To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. LIMITATIONS: Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. PURPOSE: To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. LIMITATIONS: Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].
Entities:
Keywords:
health disparities; health literacy; patient decision aids; patient-provider communication; shared decision making
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Jyoti Sharma; Elizabeth Justice; Jeb Justice; Cynthia Spiker; Larry E Laufman; Megan Price; Armin D Weinberg; Terry A Jacobson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Darren A Dewalt; Nancy D Berkman; Stacey Sheridan; Kathleen N Lohr; Michael P Pignone Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Aubri S Hoffman; Lisa M Lowenstein; Geetanjali R Kamath; Ashley J Housten; Viola B Leal; Suzanne K Linder; Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Gottumukkala S Raju; Robert J Volk Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D H Gustafson; R Hawkins; S Pingree; F McTavish; N K Arora; J Mendenhall; D F Cella; R C Serlin; F M Apantaku; J Stewart; A Salner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael A Diefenbach; Catherine Benedict; Suzanne M Miller; Annette L Stanton; Mary E Ropka; Kuang-Yi Wen; Linda G Fleisher; Nihal E Mohamed; Simon J Hall Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Kimberly R Enard; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Geetanjali R Kamath; Nickell M Dixon; Robert J Volk Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Purva Abhyankar; Aubri S Hoffman; Hilary L Bekker; Annie LeBlanc; Carrie A Levin; Mary Ropka; Victoria A Shaffer; Stacey L Sheridan; Dawn Stacey; Peep Stalmeier; Ha Vo; Celia E Wills; Richard Thomson Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Anthony Paulo Sunjaya; Lexia Bao; Allison Martin; Gian Luca DiTanna; Christine R Jenkins Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 3.320