Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments

Background: Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) requires evidence that PtDAs improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choice made, or decision quality. The aim of this paper is to review the theoretical and empirical evidence for PtDA effectiveness and discuss emerging practical and research issues in the measurement of effectiveness. Methods: This updated overview incorporates: a) an examination of the instruments used to measure five key decision-making process constructs (i.e., recognize decision, feel informed about options and outcomes, feel clear about goals and preferences, discuss goals and preferences with health care provider, and be involved in decisions) and decision quality constructs (i.e., knowledge, realistic expectations, values-choice agreement) within the 86 trials in the Cochrane review; and b) a summary of the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration’s review of PtDAs for these key constructs. Data on the constructs and instruments used were extracted independently by two authors from the 86 trials and any disagreements were resolved by discussion, with adjudication by a third party where required. Results: The 86 studies provide considerable evidence that PtDAs improve the decision-making process and decision quality. A majority of the studies (76/86; 88%) measured at least one of the key decision-making process or decision quality constructs. Seventeen different measurement instruments were used to measure decision-making process constructs, but no single instrument covered all five constructs. The Decisional Conflict Scale was most commonly used (n = 47), followed by the Control Preference Scale (n = 9). Many studies reported one or more constructs of decision quality, including knowledge (n = 59), realistic expectation of risks and benefits (n = 21), and values-choice agreement (n = 13). There was considerable variability in how values-choice agreement was defined and determined. No study reported on all key decision-making process and decision quality constructs. Conclusions: Evidence of PtDA effectiveness in improving the quality of the decision-making process and decision quality is strong and growing. There is not, however, consensus or standardization of measurement for either the decision-making process or decision quality. Additional work is needed to develop and evaluate measurement instruments and further explore theoretical issues to advance future research on PtDA effectiveness

Treatment decision-making and the form of risk communication: results of a factorial survey

BACKGROUND: Prospective users of preventive therapies often must evaluate complex information about therapeutic risks and benefits. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of relative and absolute risk information on patient decision-making in scenarios typical of health information for patients. METHODS: Factorial experiments within a telephone survey of the Michigan adult, non-institutionalized, English-speaking population. Average interview lasted 23 minutes. Subjects and sample design: 952 randomly selected adults within a random-digit dial sample of Michigan households. Completion rate was 54.3%. RESULTS: When presented hypothetical information regarding additional risks of breast cancer from a medication to prevent a bone disease, respondents reduced their willingness to recommend a female friend take the medication compared to the baseline rate (66.8% = yes). The decrease was significantly greater with relative risk information. Additional benefit information regarding preventing heart disease from the medication increased willingness to recommend the medication to a female friend relative to the baseline scenario, but did not differ between absolute and relative risk formats. When information about both increased risk of breast cancer and reduced risk of heart disease were provided, typical respondents appeared to make rational decisions consistent with Expected Utility Theory, but the information presentation format affected choices. Those 11% – 33% making decisions contrary to the medical indications were more likely to be Hispanic, older, more educated, smokers, and to have children in the home. CONCLUSIONS: In scenarios typical of health risk information, relative risk information led respondents to make non-normative decisions that were "corrected" when the frame used absolute risk information. This population sample made generally rational decisions when presented with absolute risk information, even in the context of a telephone interview requiring remembering rates given. The lack of effect of gender and race suggests that a standard strategy of presenting absolute risk information may improve patient decision-making

Clarifying Values: An updated review

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness

Shared decision-making for youth psychotherapy: A preliminary randomized clinical trial on facilitating personalized treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Engaging youth and caregivers as active collaborators in the treatment planning process is a patient-centered approach with the potential to facilitate the personalization of established evidence-based treatments. This study is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate shared decision-making (SDM) to plan youth psychotherapy. METHOD: Forty youth (7-15 years; 33% ethnic minority) were randomly assigned to psychosocial treatment planned using SDM (n = 20) or planned primarily by the clinician (n = 20). In the SDM condition, clinicians guided youth and caregivers through a collaborative treatment planning process that relies on research findings to inform three primary decisions: (a) treatment target problem(s), (b) treatment participants, and (c) treatment techniques. Assessments occurred at baseline, following treatment planning, midtreatment, and post-treatment. RESULTS: Youth and caregivers in the SDM condition reported significantly greater involvement in the treatment planning process compared to their counterparts in the clinician-guided condition (U = 123.00, p = .037; U = 84.50, p = .014, respectively) and SDM caregivers reported significantly lower decisional conflict (U = 72.00, p = .004) and decisional regret (U = 73.50, p = .020). Supporting the feasibility of successful SDM implementation, there were no significant differences between conditions on treatment length, satisfaction with decisions, or engagement. There were no significant diagnostic or symptom differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Planning psychosocial treatments in collaboration with youth and caregivers is a promising way to support youth and caregiver autonomy and plan evidence-based treatments that are responsive to patient preferences, culture, and values. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)