Impact Of Patient Decision Aids Research Articles

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BackgroundAfter curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient’s values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients’ involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.MethodsThe study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.DiscussionThis study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

Randomized Control Trial of the Impact of Patient Decision Aid Developed for Chinese Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients

Introduction: Patient decision aid (PDA) is a tool to prompt shared decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a PDA on Chinese primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Methods: All subjects were randomized into control and PDA group. The questionnaires, including 1) glaucoma knowledge; 2) 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8); 3) 10-item glaucoma medication adherence self-efficacy scale (GMASES-10); and 4) 16-item decision conflict scale (DCS), were evaluated at baseline, 3- and 6-month follow-up. Results: Totally, 156 subjects participated in this study, including 77 in the control group and 79 in the PDA group. Compared to the control group, PDA group showed around 1 point more improvement in disease knowledge at both 3 and 6 months (both p < 0.05), 2.5 (95% CI: [1.0, 4.1]) and 1.9 (95% CI: [0.2, 3.7]) points more improvement in GMASES-10 at 3 and 6 months, respectively, and reduction in DCS by 8.8 (95% CI: [4.6, 12.9]) points more at 3 months and 13.5 (95% CI: [8.9, 18.0]) points more at 6 months. No difference was detected in MMAS-8. Conclusion: PDA led to improvement in disease knowledge and self-confidence in medication adherence and reduced decision conflict compared to control group for at least 6 months.

MO14-6 The impact of patient decision aids on the shared decision-making in cancer treatment

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been identified as a key element in patient-centered oncology care. Proper patient decision aids (PDAs) in the patient-professional interactions are necessary for the quality of SDM. High-quality PDAs assist patients in making informed values-based choices and promote patient-professional interactions at the same time. The study aimed to explore whether existing and emerging PDAs improved SDM and supported patient-professional interactions from the perspectives of oncology users.

The impact of decision aids in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review

ObjectivesOur aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the impact of patient decision aids (PDA) on patients facing treatment decisions for colorectal cancer.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesSources...

Impact of patient decision aids on appropriate and timely access to hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

To evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) compared to usual education on appropriate and timely access to total joint arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with patients undergoing orthopedic screening. Control and intervention arms received usual education; intervention arm also received a PtDA and a surgeon preference report. Wait times (primary outcome) were described using stratified Kaplan-Meier survival curves with patients censored at the time of death or loss to follow-up, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were compared using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared tests. 343 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 174) or control (n = 169). The typical patient was 66 years old, retired, living with someone, and 51% had high school education or less. The intervention was associated with a trend towards reduction in wait time (hazard ratio (HR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.60, P = 0.0653). Median wait times were 3 weeks shorter in intervention than in control at the community site with no difference at the academic site. Good decision quality was reached by 56.1% intervention and 44.5% control (Relative risk (RR) 1.25; 95% CI 1.00-1.56, P = 0.050). Surgery rates were 73.2% intervention and 80.5% controls (RR 0.91: 95% CI 0.81-1.03) with 12 intervention (7.3%) and eight control participants (4.9%) returning to have surgery within 2 years (P = 0.791). Compared to controls, decision aid recipients had shorter wait times at one site, fewer surgeries, and were more likely to reach good decision quality, but overall effect was not statistically significant. The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT00911638).

Medical versus surgical methods of early abortion: protocol for a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids

IntroductionCurrently, we lack understanding of the content, quality and impact of patient decision aids to support decision-making between medical and surgical methods of early abortion. We plan to undertake a...

Design and Testing of Tools for Shared Decision Making

Shared decision making (SDM) is grounded in a compelling theoretical framework that ideally helps patients make decisions that are informed and concordant with their goals and values.1,2 Yet operationalizing SDM within routine clinical care remains an important challenge. Several approaches have been studied to improve SDM; such strategies include educating clinicians on communication techniques, using a multidisciplinary medical team, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools to support patients in their decision making. These tools, commonly referred to as patient decision aids (PtDAs), have garnered the most interest in operationalizing SDM.3 Accordingly, this article will focus specifically on the development and testing of PtDAs highlighting some important key points (see Box). ### Key Points of the Article on Decision Tool Development 1. PtDAs should be used in conjunction with a conversation with a clinician. 2. Helping patients consider and clarify their values around a decision is what makes a PtDA different from an information pamphlet. 3. Development is iterative, and the key tasks are to make sure the information is understandable, accurate, and unbiased and that the tool fits the needs and workflow of the end-users. 4. Trials designed to test the effectiveness of a decision aid need to consider both the patient’s and the clinician’s experience with the tool. 5. Decision aids should be living documents that will require updating when new information arises. Extensive work has been undertaken by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration to provide guidance in this arena. Founded in 2003, IPDAS aims to “enhance the quality and effectiveness of PtDAs by establishing an evidence-informed framework for improving their content, development, implementation, and evaluation.”4,5 This article will draw on the extensive work of the IPDAS collaboration to describe a 4-step development process for those interested in developing PtDAs, which includes, step 1: understanding the decision; step 2: drafting the first …

The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial

BackgroundShared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patient-centered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient’s values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice.Methods/DesignWe will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms.DiscussionUpon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices.Trial registrationNCT00388050

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids

The quality and cost of medical care is determined in large part by the decisions that clinicians and patients make every day about seeking care, having tests, starting treatments, and stopping treatments. There are situations in medicine in which a treatment or approach has considerable evidence of significant benefit with minimal or no harm. High-quality decisions in these situations are about efficiently delivering proven, effective care to all those who may benefit. Articles see p 251 and 260 A surprising number of medical decisions, however, do not have a single “best” answer; instead, they require clinicians and patients to make tradeoffs. In these situations, often called preference-sensitive decisions, the quality of the decision is determined by whether the test or treatment is clinically appropriate and reflects patient's informed goals and preferences.1 Shared decision-making is one approach to ensure that patients are informed and involved in decision-making and that treatments are tailored to their goals. Recent clinical guidelines put out by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association emphasize the relevance of this approach and state that “patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment and be involved in shared decision-making whenever feasible.”2 Patient decision aids are tools designed to support shared decision-making. There are established criteria for the development of these tools and more than 86 randomized, controlled trials documenting their efficacy.3,4 In general, the tools have been shown to improve the patient's knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and increase concordance between the patient's goals and their choices. Two studies in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes evaluate the impact of patient decision aids on the quality …

Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment

AbstractResearch endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.