Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:126
作者
van Weert, Julia C. M. [1 ]
van Munster, Barbara C. [2 ,3 ]
Sanders, Remco [1 ]
Spijker, Rene [4 ,5 ]
Hooft, Lotty [4 ]
Jansen, Jesse [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Commun Sci, Amsterdam Sch Commun Res ASCoR, POB 15791, NL-1001 NG Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Med, NL-9713 AV Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Gelre Hosp, Dept Geriatr, Apeldoorn, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Cochrane Netherlands, Utrecht, Netherlands
[5] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Med Lib, Meibergdreef 9, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[6] Univ Sydney, Sydney Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Med Psychol & Evidence Based Decis Making CeM, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
Medical decision making; Shared decision making; Decision aid; Decision support tool age-differences; Gerontology; Communication; Health education; Informed choice; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION; CANCER; CHOICE; PREFERENCES; INFORMATION; FRAMEWORK; IMPROVE; ADULTS; CARE;
D O I
10.1186/s12911-016-0281-8
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions. Methods: A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively. Results: The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation. Conclusions: This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2005, BACKGR DOC
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, EPPI REV
[3]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE REV HDB
[4]   Using Cognitive and Affective Illustrations to Enhance Older Adults' Website Satisfaction and Recall of Online Cancer-Related Information [J].
Bol, Nadine ;
van Weert, Julia C. M. ;
de Haes, Hanneke C. J. M. ;
Loos, Eugene F. ;
de Heer, Steven ;
Sikkel, Dirk ;
Smets, Ellen M. A. .
HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 2014, 29 (07) :678-688
[5]   Do videos improve website satisfaction and recall of online cancer-related information in older lung cancer patients? [J].
Bol, Nadine ;
Smets, Ellen M. A. ;
Rutgers, M. Mattijs ;
Burgers, Jacobus A. ;
de Haes, Hanneke. C. J. M. ;
Loos, Eugene F. ;
van Weert, Julia C. M. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2013, 92 (03) :404-412
[6]   Theoretical foundations for interventions designed to promote informed decision making for cancer screening [J].
Bowen, Deborah J. ;
Allen, Jennifer D. ;
Vu, Thuy ;
Johnson, Robin E. ;
Fryer-Edwards, Kelly ;
Hart, Alton, Jr. .
ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2006, 32 (03) :202-210
[7]   Congruence between patients' preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: a review of the literature [J].
Brom, Linda ;
Hopmans, Wendy ;
Pasman, H. Roeline W. ;
Timmermans, Danielle R. M. ;
Widdershoven, Guy A. M. ;
Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D. .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2014, 14
[8]   Shared decision-making in cardiology: Do patients want it and do doctors provide it? [J].
Burton, David ;
Blundell, Nicholas ;
Jones, Mari ;
Fraser, Alan ;
Elwyn, Glyn .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 80 (02) :173-179
[9]   Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review [J].
Chewning, Betty ;
Bylund, Carma L. ;
Shah, Bupendra ;
Arora, Neeraj K. ;
Gueguen, Jennifer A. ;
Makoul, Gregory .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2012, 86 (01) :9-18
[10]   Impact of Sociodemographic Patient Characteristics on the Efficacy of Decision Aids: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Trials [J].
Coylewright, Megan ;
Branda, Megan ;
Inselman, Jonathan W. ;
Shah, Nilay ;
Hess, Erik ;
LeBlanc, Annie ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Ting, Henry H. .
CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2014, 7 (03) :360-367