Decision Process Measures Research Articles

Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by health care practitioners: A systematic review.

To summarize relevant international scientific evidence on strategies aimed at facilitating or improving health care practitioners' adoption of shared decision making in elective surgery. The review evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies and described the characteristics of identified strategies. A systematic search of the literature was conducted up to March 2019. The review included interventions that targeted patients, health care practitioners, or health systems/organizations. Main outcomes were measures of decision process and decision outcomes. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Fifteen randomized controlled trials, one pseudo-randomized controlled trial, and four quasi-experimental studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity of interventions and the variability of outcomes used to measure the impact of these interventions precluded meta-analysis. All of the interventions included an educational component regarding the medical condition of interest and available treatment options and a supportive component to encourage patients to ask questions and involve themselves in the decision making. Published evidence on shared decision-making interventions in elective surgery is most prevalent in the breast cancer/endocrine and urology specialties, with most studies targeting their shared decision-making interventions at the patient population. The use of multiple media components within an intervention including interactive video appeared to improve patient satisfaction with the shared decision-making process. The use of well-developed educational information provided through interactive multimedia, computer or DVD based, may enhance the decision-making process. The evidence suggests that such multimedia can be used prior to the surgical consultation, presenting medical and surgical information relevant to the upcoming consultation. A decision and communication aid also appears to be an effective method to support the surgeon in patient participation and involvement in the decision-making process.

Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision

Decision aids (DAs) are tools to support patients make informed health decisions with their practitioner. They aim to improve patient knowledge of options, incorporate patient preferences and values, and increase patient involvement in health decision making. Increasingly, the debate about DAs concerns how they should be implemented in practice, with the view that DAs are superior to usual clinical care in facilitating health decisions. The authors challenge this view and suggest that DA research has focused on measures of decision process, leaving the effects on the outcome of the decision relatively unknown. It is still unclear in which conditions DAs are better for patient health and well-being than clinician-led decisions. The authors present a new randomized design to examine the effects of DA-supported patient choice on patient-centered outcomes to identify where DAs are best implemented in clinical practice. In this design, patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: intervention A, intervention B, choice of either intervention supported by a clinician, or choice of either intervention supported by a decision aid. Health and quality of life measured over the long term are presented as the primary outcomes. The authors propose that this design will allow the proper assessment of different modes of decision making.

Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = -8.4, 95% CI = -11.9 to -4.8; unclear values WMD = -6.3, 95% CI = -10.0 to -2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.