Evaluation of the effect of a patient decision aid about vasectomy on the decision-making process: a randomized trial

Contraception ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Labrecque ◽  
Cristina Paunescu ◽  
Ioana Plesu ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
France Légaré
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

What Is the Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Cancer-Related Decisions? A Systematic Review Subanalysis

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen McAlpine ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
Lyndal J. Trevena ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions. Patients and Methods Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures. Results Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, −9.56 of 100; 95% CI, −13.90 to −5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials). Conclusion Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

Using a patient decision aid about insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes clinics

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-108
Author(s):  
Ayeshah Syed
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Insulin Treatment ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Activity Analysis ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Patient Decision

The Candlin Researcher AwardThe low uptake of insulin leaves many Malaysians with type 2 diabetes at risk of developing complications. To improve decision making about insulin treatment, a patient decision aid (PDA) was developed for use with patients. However, although it is generally accepted that PDAs can support informed and shared decision making, there is limited discursive data showing how they are used in doctor–patient consultations. This paper reports on activity analysis of clinic consultations in which a PDA about insulin treatment was used. Eleven consultations with diverse participants conducted in three healthcare settings in Malaysia were systematically mapped to identify structural, interactional and thematic patterns. Two main phases of Assessment and Treatment were identified, with doctors generally participating more than patients. Mapping of the Treatment phase showed that structural patterns depended on two main factors: whether patients had read the PDA and whether they responded negatively or positively towards insulin. While mapping is only a preliminary stage of activity analysis, the findings offer insights into structural, interactional and thematic patterns in PDA use at the level of the whole consultation. They also point towards key areas for closer analysis of discursive practices.

scholarly journals Health technology assessment–based development of a Spanish breast cancer patient decision aid

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fátima Izquierdo ◽  
Javier Gracia ◽  
Mercedes Guerra ◽  
Juan Antonio Blasco ◽  
Elena Andradas
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Breast Cancer Patient ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a breast cancer Patient Decision Aid (PDA), using a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process, to assist patients in their choice of therapeutic options, and to promote shared decision making among patients, healthcare professionals, and other interested parties.Methods: A systematic review (SR) was conducted of existing breast cancer patient Decision Aids encountered in the main scientific journal databases and on institutional Web sites that create PDAs, together with a Qualitative Research (QR) study, using semi-structured interviews and focus group with stakeholders (patients, family members, and health professionals), with the aim of developing a PDA for breast cancer.Results: The SR shows that PDAs in breast cancer not only increase patient knowledge of the illness, leading to more realistic expectations of treatment outcomes, but also reduce passivity in the decision-making process and facilitate the appropriate choice of treatment options in accordance with patient medical and personal preferences. The analysis of QR shows that both breast cancer patients and healthcare professionals agree that surgery, adjuvant treatments, and breast reconstruction represent the most important decisions to be made. Worry, anxiety, optimism, and trust in healthcare professionals were determined as factors that most affected patients subjective experiences of the illness. This HTA was used as the basis for developing a PDA software program.Conclusions: The SR and QR used in the development of this PDA for breast cancer allowed patients to access information, gain additional knowledge of their illness, make shared treatment decisions, and gave healthcare professionals a deeper insight into patient experiences of the disease.

Piloting a parent and patient decision aid to support clinical trial decision making in childhood cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 1520-1529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden G. Robertson ◽  
Claire E. Wakefield ◽  
Richard J. Cohn ◽  
Robert A. Battisti ◽  
Mark W. Donoghoe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

Prospective evaluation of a new patient decision aid to enhance prostate cancer screening decision-making.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Michael Austin Brooks ◽  
Anita Misra-Hebert ◽  
Alexander Zajichek ◽  
Sigrid V. Carlsson ◽  
Jonas Hugosson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Psa Testing ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
The Impact

87 Background: We previously developed screening nomograms to predict 15-year risk of all-cause mortality, prostate cancer diagnosis, and prostate cancer mortality, and incorporated them into a graphical patient decision aid (PtDA). Our objective was to prospectively recruit primary care patients interested in shared-decision making regarding prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening and assess the impact of individualized counseling using our new PtDA. Methods: 50 patients from one internal medicine practice were enrolled in a single-arm sequential trial design, with face-to-face clinician counseling and questionnaires. Eligibility criteria included men age 50-69 years old and life expectancy > 10 years. Patients were excluded for a personal history of prostate cancer or PSA screening within the prior year. Participants completed baseline questionnaires regarding prior PSA testing, demographic information, health literacy, and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). They then received standardized counseling (based on large trial and epidemiologic data) regarding PSA screening, followed by individualized counseling using our new PtDA. Participants then made a screening decision, and completed a post decision questionnaire including a Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: The median age was 60 (IQR 54; 65). 41 (82%) had a prior PSA test, while 9 (18%) had not. 42 (84%) of participants received some education beyond high school, 41 (82%) demonstrated high health literacy, and 45 (90%) desired to have an active role in decision-making based on the CPS. After undergoing counseling, 34 (68%) participants chose to undergo initial or repeat PSA screening, 8 (16%) chose against future screening, and 8 (16%) remained uncertain. 45 (90%) participants found individualized counseling using the PtDA more useful than standardized counseling. Finally, patients reported reduced decisional conflict compared to historical controls (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our process of standardized counseling followed by individualized counseling using our new PtDA was effective in reducing decisional conflict. The majority of participants found the PtDA more useful for decision making than standardized counseling. Clinical trial information: NCT03387527.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document