Medical Decision Making
http://mdm.sagepub.com/ Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Annette M. O'Connor, Carol Bennett, Dawn Stacey, Michael J. Barry, Nananda F. Col, Karen B. Eden, Vikki Entwistle, Valerie Fiset, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Sara Khangura, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas and David Rovner Med Decis Making published online 14 September 2007 DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07307319 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/early/2007/09/14/0272989X07307319 A more recent version of this article was published on - Oct 5, 2007
On behalf of:
Society for Medical Decision Making
Additional services and information for Medical Decision Making can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mdm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Version of Record - Oct 5, 2007 >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 14, 2007 What is This?
Downloaded from mdm.sagepub.com by guest on July 22, 2012
Med Decis Making OnlineFirst, published on September 14, 2007 as doi:10.1177/0272989X07307319
Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Annette M. O’Connor, RN, PhD, Carol Bennett, MSc, Dawn Stacey, RN, PhD, Michael J. Barry, MD, Nananda F. Col, MD, MPH, MPP, Karen B. Eden, PhD, Vikki Entwistle, PhD, Valerie Fiset, MScN, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, PhD, Sara Khangura, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, PhD, David Rovner, MD
Objective. To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Data sources. Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Results. 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. Conclusions. 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. Key words: decision support techniques; patient education; patient participation; randomized controlled trials. (Med Decis Making 2007;XX:xx–xx)
Received 23 July 2007 from the Ottawa Health Research Institute, Canada (AMO, SK, CB); University of Ottawa, Canada (AMO, DS); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (MJB); Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine (NFC); Oregon...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document